Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EAST SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Edinburgh Corporation.

To be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

South Ayrshire

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make an official visit to the South Ayrshire constituency.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Sillars: Is the Secretary of State aware of the acute anxiety in South Ayrshire and other areas about the future of the Stranraer-Euston boat train, and will he take the opportunity this afternoon of publicly endorsing the view that the

retention of this service is essential for the economy of the South-West?

Mr. Campbell: As the hon. Member should know, British Railways are considering the position of this line at present, and I would not want to say more at this stage.

Mr. Brewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that transport needs are very urgent in this area, not only railways but also roads? Will he give this area his best consideration?

Mr. Campbell: As my hon. Friend knows, we are very concerned about transport and other matters, and the South-West Study recently published will help us in considering this matter.

Housing Finance

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will convene a special meeting of Scottish local authorities to discuss means of overcoming the Scottish housing problem.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I will shortly be discussing with the local authority associations our proposals for the reform of housing finance, which are basic to the solution of Scotland's housing problems. Meanwhile, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development is meeting a number of individual authorities to discuss their local problems.

Mr. Sillars: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I remind him of the Prime Minister's promise that his Ministers would deal openly and honestly with the House of Commons? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us clearly whether his new housing support policy will increase, decrease or retain the house building figures in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: As I have said before in this House, I do not intend to attempt to foretell precisely what the figures will be in the future. I thought that hon. Members opposite had learend a lesson about that. As for the Prime Minister's words, how the hon. Gentleman himself could have spoken the nonsense which he is reported to have uttered at Cumnock last weekend I do not know. If he thinks that we are planning an election in the spring, he will believe anything.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I found the first sentence of his reply rather familiar?
The housing problems of Scotland cannot be satisfactorily tackled until housing finance is put on a realistic basis.
That is what his party said in their Housing White Paper of 1961, and thereafter the housing completions in Scotland fell to the lowest ever. When is the right hon. Gentleman going to come clean with the House and tell us what is his target for house building in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: It is incredible that the right hon. Gentleman, of all Members, should ask a question about targets when he and his party failed abjectly to meet the target of 50,000 houses a year in Scotland by 1970 or the target for Britain.

Fair Rents Policy

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish his estimate of the effect on Scottish local authority rent levels of a fair rents policy and the balancing of the housing revenue accounts.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The fair rent formula cannot be applied at present to council rents in Scotland, for reasons which make an estimate of its effect impossible. The future level of rents will depend on the detailed arrangements which will shortly be discussing with the local authority associations based on a true rent formula and annual progression by reasonable steps.

Mr. Douglas: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his speech on 16th October at Perth? Will he confirm or deny that the inevitability of Tory gradualness in Scottish local authority rents will mean rent increases around 200 per cent. and that we can look forward to local authority housing rents in Scotland in the region of £7 a week?

Mr. Campbell: I remember my words very well and they explained our policy clearly. Our policy includes a proper rent rebate scheme in the private sector for the first time, as well as in the public sector. In this way those who are badly off will be assisted in their housing by central government funds, and the Scot-

tish ratepayers will no longer be expected to subsidise many who do not need it. Scottish ratepayers at present are paying 35 per cent. of the council house annual expenditure as opposed to 7 per cent. in England.

Mr. Ross: Am I right in saying that the one thing that is clear in the Tory Government's housing policy is that rents will go up both for local authority houses and for private houses?

Mr. Campbell: Some of the rents will go up where they are inordinately low, by reasonable steps. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be encouraging the same thing when he was in office.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give estimates of the level of rate support grant for Scottish local authorities in 1971–72.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): My right hon. Friend will be laying a rate support grant Order for the next two years before the House in due course.

Mr. Douglas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but will he admit that rates cannot be regarded as a buoyant source of local authority finance and that they will not meet the needs of local authority expansion in the latter decades of the twentieth century? Finally, will he ask his right hon. Friend not to go on B.B.C. television or anywhere else to contradict two days later replies given in the House on the subject of local authority finances?

Mr. Younger: On the first point, the question of different forms of local government finance and the raising of it is under consideration at the moment, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and the findings will be published in due course. As for his second observation, I was not privileged to see my right hon. Friend's television appearance, but I am told that it was extremely successful.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Secretary of State has any plans for altering the formula on which the rate support grant is disbursed?

Mr. Younger: We are still considering the exact form of this year's rate support grant Order, but it will be based on the usual formula.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the domestic element to be cut from the 10d. it has been under the previous Government, and to what figure?

Mr. Younger: There is no such proposal. In any case, that would be a matter for consideration in the course of drawing up the Order.

Council Houses (Sale)

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will refuse permission to sell council houses in Scotland to local authorities with non-existent or inadequate council house building programmes.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Each application for permission to sell will be considered on its merits.

Mr. Smith: As the Secretary of State's reply evades the point of the Question, are we to understand that permission may be given to local authorities with poor housing programmes, with the result that people in need of houses will be replaced by people who can pay for them?

Mr. Campbell: I have explained that each case will be considered on its merits, and there will, no doubt, be many different circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman is in doubt and needs more enlightenment, he should consult his own Chief Whip who, during a curtailed term of office as Minister of Housing, was advocating last June a policy of selling council houses and proclaiming its benefits to the electorate.

Migration (Statistics)

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange to issue statistics on migration from Scotland quarterly.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): This is not practicable. Half-yearly estimates of net migration are published in the Registrar-General's quarterly returns for the June and December quarters Half-

yearly overseas migration figures are given also in the returns for the March and September quarters.

Mr. Smith: Bearing in mind that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) promised when he took office to halve the figures of migration from Scotland and more than beat the target which he set himself, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what target the Conservative Government have set and what proposals they have to meet it?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Before the hon. Gentleman makes statements like that, he should remind himself that the average number of people migrating from Scotland was 4,000 a year higher during the six years of Labour Government than it was during the previous six years of Conservative Government.

Mr. Ross: Considering that the last time the present Secretary of State had anything to do with Scottish affairs migration was running at the rate of over 40,000, and he has now inherited a rate just over 20,000, to what does the hon. Gentleman attribute that fall?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In case he does not remember, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that a peak migration figure of 47,000 was reached during his tenure of office. While we welcome a reduction in migration figures recently, I must point out that migration overseas has continued at a high level. It has been better merely within the United Kingdom because of the disastrous policies of his Government, which discouraged people from moving within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that of equal importance in this matter is the need to attract migrants into Scotland?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure my hon. Friend that we bear that very much in mind.

Highlands and Islands Veterinary Services Scheme

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the delays in reaching agreement over the Highlands and Islands Veterinary Services Scheme regarding remuneration for veterinary surgeons in non-viable remote areas


practices, he will take steps to arrange for these negotiations to be concluded without further delay.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Negotiations have been resumed, and I am anxious that they be concluded as soon as possible.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend will be aware that this group of people play a vital part in the whole life of the Highlands and that, if something is not done quickly, these gentlemen will have to seek employment elsewhere. Will he give an assurance that he will intervene personally in an effort to reach a satisfactory conclusion?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says, and I am very conscious of the important work done by veterinary surgeons in the Scheme. I met the B.V.A. negotiators on Monday of this week, and I hope that a satisfactory solution to the difficulties can be found.

Electricity Supplies (North of Scotland)

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in view of the high charges for connection of electricity supplies made by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to persons building houses in remote areas, if he will seek powers to provide financial assistance in such cases.

Mr. Younger: Assistance towards electricity connection costs is available under Crofters Building Grants Scheme. It is open to any consumer to make representations to the Electricity Consultative Council for the North of Scotland if he feels aggrieved about connection charges.

Mr. Gray: Does my hon. Friend realise that the charges being imposed in the Highlands may in certain cases go as high as £500? Will he consider making available a separate grant altogether so that the sum going towards electricity installation will not take up such a large amount of the total?

Mr. Younger: The fixing of connection charges is entirely a matter for the board. It is worth noting that the board out of its own revenue subsidies such connection charges up to a total of about £2 million in a year, so some help is being given in this way.

Mr. Maclennan: Recognising that it is the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and not Greenwich Mean Time which has extended light throughout the Highlands, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to discuss with the chairman of the board how the householder's contribution towards the cost of connection can be reduced, since otherwise the programme will remain uncompleted for many years?

Mr. Younger: I have had several discussions with the chairman of the board. If he would care to raise that question with me, I should be prepared to discuss it with him.

Older Houses (Improvement)

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that sufficient advantage is being taken of grants for the improvement of older houses to enable modernisation to outpace deterioration in such a way as to diminish the stock of substandard accommodation in Scotland: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: There has recently been an encouraging increase in the number of houses improved with grants. I am mounting a special campaign to encourage the improvement and rehabilitation of older houses, especially those below the tolerable standard.

Earl of Dalkeith: My right hon. Friend knows, perhaps, that I have been pressing for some years for a major advertising campaign to let it be widely known that there are these excellent grants available. If he is embarking on such a campaign, may I congratulate him and wish him every success, for it needs to be done on a fairly wide scale?

Mr. Campbell: A major publicity campaign is in preparation.

Mr. Ross: As it is the declared opinion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) that anyone who receives a grant is liable to have the moral fibre of his being rotted, will the Secretary of State keep his hon. Friend away from any advertising or publicity campaign?

Mr. Campbell: That supplementary question was nearly two years too late.

European Economic Community

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further consultations he has had with representatives of the Scottish fishing industry with regard to the possible consequences of entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 4th November in which my right hon. Friend stated that he and his right hon. Friends are well aware of the anxieties of the fishing industry and that they are taking them into account in the negotiations.—[Vol. 805, c. 376.]

Mr. Strang: The Scottish inshore fishing industry is most concerned about the Government's intentions in this matter. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that concern was increased by a statement made by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the House on 17th November? In order to heal the damage, will the hon. Gentleman urge his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture to issue a statement listing those aspects of the Common Market common fisheries policy which are utterly unacceptable and not negotiable?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am as concerned as he is. I have considerable fishing interests in my own constituency, and I am well aware of what is involved. These are matters for negotiation, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the interests of the inshore fishing industry in general and the industry in Scotland in particular are being fully taken into account in the negotiations.

Mr. Grimond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Answer given to me in November and his present Answer are unsatisfactory in that we are constantly assured about concern but in the meantime the common fisheries policy is drawn up without our being represented, with potentially disastrous effects for our fishing industry? Will he give an assurance that he is strongly pressing the Foreign Office on this matter, as so far it has had absolutely no effect on fishing policy, and

the sooner it gets down to representing us in Brussels, the better?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman knows only too well that the question of what policy the Common Market countries have at the moment is their concern. As he was told in a letter, and as he knows, we made strong representations that the E.E.C. countries should hold off their discussions until they negotiated with us, but they decided not to do so. In the circumstances, as I have said, we are making the strongest possible representations in relation to our interests.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I thank my hon. Friend for his replies so far. Will he confirm that the Government's position is that they will join the E.E.C. only provided the terms are right? At present the terms are not right for the inshore fishing industry.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No questions have yet been decided as regards our fishing industry. I assure my hon. Friend that his points will be borne in mind.

Mr. Maclennan: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has spoken of certain protections within the E.E.C. common fisheries policy. Can the hon. Gentleman say what derogations from the provisions for equality of access are permitted by the policy? For example, would the Minch be closed to foreign vessels? What protections are there against excessive exploitation? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is vital that the interests of the fishing industry, and particularly the inshore fishing industry, be protected during negotiations and not afterwards?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is raising a number of completely hypothetical questions. I ask him to accept the assurance, in view of the points mentioned in the House this afternoon and my own interest in the matter, that we are very carefully looking after the interests of our inshore fishing industry.

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the dangers to the Scottish inshore fishing industry resulting from the fishing industry plans of the present members of the European


Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The only direct representation my right hon. Friend has received on this subject came from the Herring Industry Advisory Council. He has also received copies of other representations made to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The reply given on 4th November to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) stated the present position.—[Vol. 805, c. 376.]

Sir J. Gilmour: Will my hon. Friend make special representations to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the importance to Scotland of the inshore fishing industry and at the same time tell him that, in European Conservation Year, he should be making moves to stop industrial fishing in the North Sea and saying that we will have nothing to do with anyone coming inside our limits?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I will convey my hon. Friend's views to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the factual question I put to him? Will he say what derogations from the provisions for equality of access are permitted by the E.E.C. common fisheries policy and whether he believes that the Scottish fishing industry will be able to take advantage of them?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would realise, from the time when his Government were negotiating, that these are questions for negotiation and must be left to the Government to do. The interests of the Scottish fishing industry are fully taken into account in Europe.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does not my hon. Friend realise that all these difficulties would not arise and that we should not have any trouble if we did not go into the Common Market and kept control of fishing rights in our own hands at Westminster?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am always interested to hear the robust views of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison).

Mr. Eadie: Is not the best way to safeguard the inshore fishermen's posi-

tion to read the report published today by the Economic Research Institute on the question of entry into the Common Market, which completely demolishes the arguments for going in? The whole thing is a nonsense. Why not convey to the Prime Minister the need to read the report so that we can save the inshore fishermen from their dangerous position?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman might first have conveyed his views to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the interests of the inshore fishing fleet are safeguarded should Great Britain join the European Economic Community, in the light of European Economic Community fisheries policies due to come into operation in February of next year.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am conscious of the anxieties of the fishing industry in Scotland. However, at this stage, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 16th November to the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle).—[Vol. 806, c. 840–1.]

Mr. Baker: Does my hon. Friend accept that the very minimum acceptable terms to the inshore fishing industry of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom is the retention of the 12-mile and three-mile limit and that nothing less than that will do?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I will convey my hon. Friend's views to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman now give a straight answer to a straight question? How far is he prepared to concede the rights of the Scottish inshore fishermen in order to get into the Common Market?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There are other factors in relation to fishermen which are under negotiation. We have to look at the negotiations as a whole. I have assured the House, as my right hon. and learned Friend has done, that the interests of the inshore fishing industry will be attended to, as well as the interests of other sectors of the industry.

Mr. Grimond: As, so far, we have made no progress on this matter, will the hon. Gentleman consider sending a representative of the Scottish Office, perhaps the Secretary of State, to put our case?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that Scotland's interests in the negotiations are well looked after and cared for.

Mr. Murray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to make an official visit to Brussels during the current Common Market negotiations.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Development visited Brussels on 7th and 8th September. I myself shall not hesitate to go if my presence is required.

Mr. Murray: I should like to see the present Secretary of State go to Brussels but, in the absence of such a visit, would he take an opportunity to make a statement about what conditions he considers to be essential to maintain Scottish interests in these negotiations? Is he particularly aware that there is some anxiety in Scotland about guaranteeing regional economic policies as they affect Scotland, Northern Ireland, Northern England and Wales? Is he further aware that in the original negotiations in regard to Italy a special protocol for the regional economic policy of Southern Italy and Sicily was agreed?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be asking for a full statement. Although I understand his aims, I would advise him that in diplomacy it is not a propitious or effective way of starting negotiations to make a public statement of all the things one wishes to achieve. I am aware of concern for Scotland, including the very important matters affecting the fishing industry, but I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that our ambassador to the Common Market is a Scot who has always kept his home in Edinburgh and that I saw him very recently.

Sir J. Gilmour: When the Secretary of State does make a visit, will he travel in an inshore fishing vessel from his con-

stituency in the Moray Firth and discuss the problem en route?

Mr. Campbell: Having on many occasions spent several days in fishing vessels based at Lossiemouth in my constituency, I can think of no better way of going there.

Bulls and Boars (Licensing)

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with outside bodies about the future of bull and boar licensing in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Agricultural Departments consulted representatives of the organisations interested in bull and boar licensing earlier this year.
For the time being there is nothing I can add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the hon. Member and others on 27th October.—[Vol. 805, c. 5–6.]

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that that Answer is just not good enough? Is not he aware that the present bull and boar licensing regulations are positively hindering livestock improvement in Scotland? Will he consult the Agriculture Research Council and the Animal Breeding Research Organisation on the question? Will he undertake to give due consideration to livestock experts in those bodies, in the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Milk Marketing Board before taking a decision?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter. He must be aware that there is a great conflict of views on the subject. The present Government do not take steps like this without consulting those involved. The consultations are taking place, and when we have completed them we shall come to a decision.

Mr. Brewis: Has my hon. Friend considered how far it might be practicable to transfer these important functions, the licensing of bulls and boards, to the herd-book societies?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is one factor that we shall take into account in our consultations. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it.

House Building (Targets)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the Government's future yearly targets for private and public house building; what representations he has received from local authorities on future house building; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No", and to the second part "None".

Mr. Eadie: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that thousands of families in Scotland are in need of housing and want to know what their housing opportunities will be in two to three years time? Not to give any indication of targets is a form of cruelty. It is not a question of government by smoke signals; it is not government at all.

Mr. Campbell: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman knew that a situation had been reached in Scotland where there is a great need for houses in certain areas but in others the demand is already being met. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should again be calling upon us to proclaim targets when his party completely failed in this respect. The local authorities in Scotland are assessing their problem of sub-tolerable houses and when I get the results I expect to have a much better picture than was available to me when I took office of where the real housing needs are.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his answers show appalling complacency in view of the urgency of the problem, and that the submissions for approval coming into the Department are reaching an all-time low, even lower than when he was Under-Secretary of State responsible for the two disastrous quarters of 1964?

Mr. Campbell: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that the decline in approvals started last year? There has been a continuous reduction in 1969 and the first six months of 1970 compared with 1968.

Earl of Dalkeith: With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) about cruelty, does my right hon. Friend agree that it

is infinitely more cruel to promise people houses and then not provide them?

Mr. Campbell: I entirely agree with my noble Friend.

School Building Programme

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed his discussions with local authorities on future allocations of finance for education expenditure in new primary school building.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): In a circular issued by my right hon. Friend's Department yesterday education authorities were asked to submit by 1st March, 1971 details of urgent projects which they wish to be considered for inclusion in the £4 million primary school improvement programme in 1972–73. I am sending him a copy of the circular.

Mr. Eadie: While I thank the Minister for his offer, is he aware that today the Secretary of State for Education and Science has issued the specific programme of primary school building for England? Can he explain why the Scottish Office is creating this cart-horse image? Will he be a little more forthcoming, and explain why there has been such delay, and why local authorities do not know precisely where they are in relation to additional primary school building in Scotland?

Mr. Taylor: Local authorities do know where they are. They were given allocations by the previous Administration and many of them have protested that these were quite inadequate. We now have an additional £4 million to distribute in 1972–73, and I am sure that most local authorities will be very grateful.

Mr. Buchan: We are highly sceptical of the figures the hon. Gentleman is throwing at us. It remains to be seen whether that money is to be spent. Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the rate of school building that has been going on for the past five years will be maintained for the five-year period, instead of giving us the hypothetical figure for 1972–73?

Mr. Taylor: Clearly, I am not in a position to say what will happen in five


years' time. All kinds of things can change, as the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware. But I can assure him that the previous programme which was fixed in April with the authorities is being increased by £4 million for primary school building in the year 1972–73.

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that the school building programme is adequate for raising the school-leaving age in 1972–73; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Taylor: My right hon. Friend is generally satisfied with the progress that is being made, but he is at present reviewing the position in the light of representations which he has had from some education authorities.

Mr. Brewis: Does that answer mean that, owing to the cuts in educational building by the last Government, sufficient resources will not be available when the due time comes?

Mr. Taylor: It is clear that there are problems to be overcome in parts of some authorities' areas before we can be sure that there will be places for all those who will be staying on.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) should not refer to "cuts", because there was an expansion of 70 per cent. in resources during our period in office. This raises the question whether the Under-Secretary of State has his priorities right. Should not the accent be on secondary school building in Scotland rather than merely aping the Secretary of State for Education and Science in England in putting the emphasis the other way round?

Mr. Taylor: I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman's attitude to what is a considerable addition to Scotland's school-building programme. It is in addition to what was provided by the last Government. It is something extra. That is the fact.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he hopes to make a statement on the allocation of funds to local authorities for capital school building projects in both the primary and secondary spheres.

Mr. Edward Taylor: My right hon. Friend is considering representations about the capital investment allocations for 1971–72 and 1972–73 that were issued in April. He will let education authorities know the outcome as soon as possible.

Mr. Baker: Will my hon. Friend assure us that careful note will be taken of the special difficulties being faced in the county of Banff and that the county will get more than a fair crack of the whip?

Mr. Taylor: Banffshire is one of the authorities whose representations I am considering. I am afraid there is nothing further that I can add at this stage.

Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman raise his sights? We expected something a little better from him in this respect. Does he realise that the starts suggested for 1972–73—and we notice that there is to be no improvement this year or next year—even then will be £10 million less than the starts in 1968?

Mr. Taylor: What we are talking about is the allocation for 1971–72 and 1972–73, which was set by the previous Administration. We are considering representations from no fewer than 24 local authorities who protested that it was inadequate, and I have given an undertaking that I shall be saying something soon about this matter. I emphasise that this is an allocation fixed in April by the right hon. Gentleman's Administration.

Police

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable on the plans he has for bringing the police force in the county of Fife up to strength; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I understand that the Chief Constable is running an active recruiting campaign involving selective advertising; maintaining close liaison with local schools; and encouraging his officers to attract suitable men to the service. He is also considering employing additional civilians to release more police officers for duties which require their powers.

Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman has not given the figures of the under-strength in the county of Fife. Is he aware that the position is very serious, and does he agree that increased rates of pay and improved conditions could ease it? Is he aware that when he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were in Opposition they gave the impression that when they came to power they would work miracles in police recruitment? Is the position worse, or is it better?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman cared to ask me a Question about police strength in the county of Fife I should be very glad to answer. The force is 39 below establishment. I am not in the least complacent about forces that are under-strength. Matters of pay are being negotiated on the Police Council, and I cannot comment on what is happening there.

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the shortage of police in Scotland at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The number of vacancies in the regular police force in Scotland at 30th September, 1970, was 856. I am glad to say that in the nine months ending 30th September there has been a net increase of 73 in total police strength. We will continue our efforts in conjunction with police authorities to improve recruitment and the efficient use of police manpower.

Mr. Sproat: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, in spite of the fact that recently the trend has marginally improved, the situation is very disquieting? Will he not put the full weight of his Department behind any moves to improve the pay structure and working conditions of the police as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure my hon. Friend that we are extremely concerned about the position of police in Scotland. Negotiations with the police on the matter of pay are a matter for the Police Council.

Mr. Buchan: The Under-Secretary must be aware of the powerful feeling at present among police in Scotland and in the United Kingdom as a whole. Will

he give an assurance that the Government do not intend to make the police the first target for any clobbering of public servants on the income front?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Those words come ill from the hon. Gentleman. I remind him that the present Government, for the first time for three years, have given authority for an increase in police establishments. This will enable the police to start recruiting for the first time in three years.

Old Property (Demolition)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for encouraging local authorities in Scotland to demolish old property in areas where there is a need to do so; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Under our proposed reform of housing finance special assistance will be given towards the high cost of slum clearance.

Mr. Hunter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the time lag between the serving of demolition orders and actual demolition is too great in certain parts of Scotland? Is he further aware that areas of old property in our town and villages present a picture of dereliction even where reasonably good property is in the vicinity? Will he try to instil into local authorities the need to do something quickly on this matter?

Mr. Campbell: I am anxious to cut out delays and I would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would inform me of any particular case he knows about. As already announced, our proposals for the reform of housing finance include special assistance to relieve the high cost of slum clearance.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that, when in Opposition, despite his abhorrence of targets, he endorsed the Cullingworth Report's target of 30,000 slum houses to be removed each year? Is that the Government's policy?

Mr. Campbell: I do not recall any particular endorsement but I remember the Cullingworth Report, which was a very valuable one. I shall try to follow what was recommended there.

Horse and Pony Raising

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy regarding the use of agricultural land for horse and pony raising.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Decisions on the use of agricultural land are for the occupier of the land to take in the light of the prevailing circumstances.

Mr. Brewis: Is the Clydesdale horse still an agricultural animal or not?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If it is used for agricultural purposes.

Wheat (Support Price)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what account will be taken of the records of yields of wheat in Scotland as compared with England in arriving at an acreage payment for the support price of wheat in place of the present method.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This calculation is done for the United Kingdom as a whole and due consideration is given to high yields.

Sir J. Gilmour: Since the average yields in Scotland are 2 cwt. better than in England, does not this mean that Scottish wheat growers will be subsidising English farmers? Will my hon. Friend see that he gets a proper quid pro quo from his right hon. Friend in any future negotiations?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern but I ask him to bear in mind two things: first, what we are doing benefits the livestock farmers in Scotland who grow wheat—and the livestock industry in Scotland is particularly important—and, secondly, this move simplifies and reduces considerably the costs of administration.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that one of the reasons that we have had such good yields in Scotland is the good advice given by the Scottish Agricultural Department in regard to seed usage? Will he continue this good advice in order to remove any fear of diseases in wheat during future years?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment. We

hope that this new system will encourage the spread of wheat growing in Scotland.

(Drift-net-Fishing)

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the present situation in regard to drift-net fishing for salmon in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend is considering what action should be taken on the expiry in February, 1971 of the current Order banning drift-net fishing for salmon off the Scottish coast.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in a reply given to me yesterday the Government indicated an increase of over 100 licences issued for England and Wales over the last five years? Does not the injustice of the present situation lie in the discrimination between Scottish boats as opposed to English boats, which rankles most of all, and ought this not to be corrected here and now while these endless considerations continue?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I understand the point of view of my hon. Friend, but he must remember that in England and Wales drift-netting has been the traditional method of fishing, whereas in Scotland it has been carried out by what we call fixed engines. There is a difference between the two countries, but I shall bear his point in mind.

Mr. David Steel: Are we to take it that, with the change of Government, consideration of the recommendations of the Hunter Report is to start all over again?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Labour Government showed no sign of giving any consideration to this matter at all. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we hope to come to a conclusion before too long.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Murray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on Scottish local government reform.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: As previously stated, I am hoping to publish a While Paper soon in the New Year.

Mr. Murray: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is some feeling that the delay in this matter is becoming rather great? Is he further aware that so far as Scotland is concerned the Wheatley Commission was relatively non-controversial in comparison with Redcliffe-Maud and that there would appear to be less need for delay in issuing some proposals for discussion?

Mr. Campbell: I am delighted if the hon. and learned Gentleman foresees little controversy when our White Paper is published in a few weeks' time. The Labour Government were always telling us that they were about to publish a White Paper on the subject. They had nine months from September to June to do it, and it never appeared. We have had five months, and I hope that we shall be well within their period.

Mr. Ross: What consultations has the right hon. Gentleman had with local authorities? Is it not a fact that since I gave him access to all the papers in respect of our negotiations with local authorities, that has saved him a good deal of time? Will he not be a little more gracious about that assistance?

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman's White Paper was not available to me. We felt it right to carry out our own round of negotiations and discussions with the local authority associations, but I am glad that in addition we had their original views as given to the right hon. Gentleman. This is a very important matter not only for this House but for everybody in Scotland, and when our White Paper is published I hope 'that it will represent a majority of agreement within the House and outside.

House Building (Standards)

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the implementation of his Department's direction and instructions about the standards of local authority house building; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have no reason to believe that local authorities are failing in their responsibility to see that standards are observed.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient numbers of

clerks of works are being employed, because it seems to me that some rather dicey-looking buildings are being erected?

Mr. Campbell: I shall certainly take into account what my hon. Friend has said, but this is a matter for local authorities. My officials frequently visit local authority schemes and they would raise with the local authorities any evidence of bad workmanship or construction.

Edinburgh (Transport Problems)

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given to Edinburgh Corporation about transport problems in the city.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend is sharing the cost of a Planning and Transport Study which Edinburgh Corporation has commissioned in order to obtain such advice.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will my hon. Friend look at the plans that seem to be maturing in Edinburgh, particularly about the link road and the ring road, which, so far as I can discover, nobody in the city wants Secondly, will he look into the possibility of bringing back the suburban railways?

Mr. Younger: The first part of my hon. Friend's question is entirely a matter for Edinburgh Corporation to decide. On the question of suburban railway lines, I understand that the consultants who are at present conducting a study of the central area of the city are looking into these and other matters.

School Meals

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish schoolchildren in January, 1970, were receiving free school meals.

Mr. Edward Taylor: About 96,000.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Would the hon. Gentleman say what fresh steps he has taken, as he promised, to make sure that children who are in receipt of free school meals are in no way distinguished from other schoolchildren receiving school meals?

Mr. Taylor: We have made crystal clear to local authorities our views on


this matter. I have dealt with this matter previously at Question Time and we are reinforcing this advice.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of Scottish schoolchildren who will be entitled to receive free school meals in each of the four years 1971 to 1975.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I expect that in 1971, after the new arrangements come into force, the number of children receiving free meals will increase by about one-third and that there may be further increases in the following years.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Do I take it that this estimate of additional expenditure is being discounted against the so-called savings made in this sphere and that these are firm estimates and targets?

Mr. Taylor: It is impossible to give a firm estimate about the increased number of free meals or of the cost in specific terms. We can say that the new and more generous arrangements which are being introduced will ensure that a larger number of schoolchildren will receive free meals.

Primary Schools

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of primary school classes in Fife with more than 40 pupils.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I am asking the education authority to send the latest available information to the hon. Member.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there are a number of schools in my constituency, let alone the county of Fife, with classes of more than 40 pupils? Does the Minister recall that in a reply to me on 4th November the figures indicated that in the direct-grant schools in Scotland the average number of pupils per primary class was 28? Does he not consider it a shocking state of affairs that with so many classes in Fife with over 40 pupils the Government should seek to encourage and perpetuate the two-nation system in Scottish education?

Mr. Taylor: There is a later Question dealing with a related matter and I should be pleased to deal with this point when it

arises. It is fair to point out, although I do not want to minimise the real problems in Fife, that, on the basis of the provisional 1970 figures, 15·8 per cent. of Fife's primary classes have more than 40 pupils compared with the national average of 16·2 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Government Departments (Devolution)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister for the Civil Service (1) what is his policy for the devolution of Government Departments, in view of the difficulty in recruiting for the Civil Service at clerical class and lower executive level in the London area and the shortage of clerical jobs for school leavers in Teesside; and if he will make a statement;
(2) what preparation he is making to provide employment for Civil Service personnel in Teesside faced with transfer or redundancy when the Investment Grants Office is disbanded next year.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): Our policy is, as far as the claims of operational efficiency allow, to give priority to the development areas in choosing locations for work dispersed from London; but I cannot at this stage give undertakings about particular locations. Discussions are in progress about placing surplus established staff in other Departments.

Mr. Sutcliffe: May I urge on my hon. Friend the seriousness of the situation, particularly for young people on Teesside? While clerical work is severely limited, clerical workers in the youth employment service are overstretched giving guidance and making unemployment payments which, in the four months from June to September, were running at an annual rate nine times as high as that of Birmingham.

Mr. Howell: I take note of my hon. Friend's point about the seriousness of the situation. I cannot give particular undertakings, but the claims of areas such as those in development areas will be given sympathetic consideration.

Mr. David Reed: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, since there are 137 civil servants on Teesside who are now


extremely worried about their future due to the impending closure of the Investment Grants Office, this matter directly concerns him? Will he undertake to approach and make representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on their behalf?

Mr. Howell: I shall be looking at the matter very closely. The effects will not begin to be felt until next year, but I shall give the matter sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Bob Brown: Does the Minister's original Answer about concern for the development areas measure up with the fact that the Land Commission in Newcastle is to be closed, thereby causing considerable redundancies among civil servants? Have the Government any proposals for bringing in a new Department to take its place?

Mr. Howell: Looking after established civil servants is one thing. Keeping on redundant organisations which cost the taxpayer money is quite another.

Industrial Civil Servants

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations have been made to him concerning the status of industrial civil servants; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. David Howell: Only a very few letters on this subject have been received by the Department since the present Administration took office, but I understand that a number of letters were received in May and June of this year.

Mr. Hamling: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable disquiet amongst industrial civil servants in the Woolwich area, particularly in the former R.O.F., about their status, salaries, pension rights, and so on? What steps have been taken to follow up the representations made in the spring of this year?

Mr. Howell: A number of steps have already been taken about superannuation, sick leave, and that kind of thing. The Government's general policy is to build on what is common between industrial and non-industrial civil servants.

Civil Service (Holidays)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister for the Civil Service why civil servants are being given holidays on Christmas Eve and Monday, 28th December when no such Bank Holiday has been arranged this December for the benefit of all other workers.

Mr. David Howell: Civil servants have for many years been granted an extra day's privilege holiday at Christmas and a further day when Boxing Day falls on a Saturday. This does not mean that all civil servants will have holidays on both Christmas Eve and Monday 28th December. The arrangement of the Christmas break will vary according to the needs of individual Departments and the service to be provided to the public.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that this is yet another step which divides the nation? Whereas wage earners will be dubbed as absentees and lose pay on the Monday, not only civil servants but large numbers of professional people will have that day off. Will the Government do something to ameliorate this injustice?

Mr. Howell: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has got this right. There is no difference between the arrangements this year and in past years. It is the normal Civil Service practice to make this kind of arrangement, particularly when Christmas Day falls on a Friday. If other employers in other parts of the country wish to give their employees a day off, they are free to do so.

Electronic Location or Status Indicating Equipment (House of Commons)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister for the Civil Service, whereas electronic location or status indicating equipment was installed in 1968 for use of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and its use is now discontinued by the present incumbent of that office, how many civil servants and at what cost annually replaced the equipment; and how the equipment was disposed of and at what price compared with its cost of £18,000.

Mr. David Howell: I have personally inspected the equipment, known I believe as ELSIE. It is no longer in use but


its future I find has yet to be decided. No additional civil servants have been employed in place of this equipment.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not the fact that this electronic equipment is rusty and obsolescent and is lying in a corner of the Patronage Secretary's office? Does my hon. Friend agree, having regard to all the surrounding circumstances, that it is the innate sense of discipline and responsibility of Government Members which contributes to high majorities—such as the 46 achieved on the Merseyshide vote last evening—substantially in excess of the Government's recognised majority?

Mr. Howell: I share my hon. Friend's view about the voting skills on this side of the House and my right hon. Friend's prowess in the matter. It seems to be the case that we can do better without this rather elaborate and unnecessary piece of equipment.

Mr. Mellish: As I was responsible for operating ELSIE, may I get on record that, under our control, she was a very well-behaved young lady and every time one pressed her she lit up? It is typical of this Government that the present machinery has degenerated and is no longer of any use.

Mr. Howell: Well behaved she may have been, but she was also a little pricey.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Cannot the Whips on either side do this sort of labour of love with their quill pens? Will my hon. Friend please see that the bill for this particular device is sent to the Parliamentary Labour Party, not to the taxpayer?

Mr. Howell: It is certainly the case that we can manage without it. Concerning cost, maintenance costs will not arise in future if we do not use it.

Mr. O'Malley: The Minister should get his facts right about it being pricey. Will he confirm, first, that when that equipment was introduced the number of clerks employed was reduced by two, which cut down the cost; and, secondly, that the Whips Office is now employing one more clerk than was employed under the Labour Administration?

Mr. Howell: No more clerks are employed at public expense in the Whips

Office, so the staff saving achieved by ELSIE is still maintained without ELSIE.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: asked the Minister for the Civil Service, pursuant to failure of electronic location or status indicating equipment to deliver correct results for guidance of civil servants employed in the office of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury at the House of Commons between 1968 and June, 1970, what further employment for the equipment is now arranged within the Civil Service.

Mr. David Howell: We do not yet know whether this equipment can be used in any way in the Civil Service. If not, it will be disposed of in the most appropriate way.

Sir G. Nabarro: I must press my hon. Friend. Does he agree that whereas it has no direct use within the Civil Service, it is a highly specialised piece of electronic equipment, specially constructed to meet the peculiar needs of the Labour Party, and has no known application in the outside world? Will my hon. Friend step along to Smith Square and offer it to Transport House for the purpose of rescuing the dismal finances of the Labour Party?

Mr. Howell: Sorting out the ways and problems of Transport House is a matter for hon. Members opposite.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Minister aware that if he will knock the price down low enough we might even take it in the Liberal Party?

Mr. Howell: I am open to all ideas, however bizarre.

Public Service Pensions

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether the envisaged review of Civil Service and public servants' pensions will include the pensions of former Prime Ministers; and what at the latest stated date is the pension payable to a former Prime Minister.

Mr. David Howell: The annual rate of pension is £4,000 for any Prime Minister who retires after 31st March, 1965. As to the first part of the Question, I must ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the Pensions (Increase) Bill.

Mr. Lewis: I do not begrudge any Prime Minister a pension of £4,000 a year, even if he holds the job for only one year, but is it not a bit ludicrous that a right hon. Member who has served the House for, say, 40 years in many great Cabinet posts has to retire on a pension of £940 a year? Is it not a little ludicrous to give such a right hon. Member a nominal sum of £940, but a reasonable pension to ex-Prime Ministers.

Mr. Howell: I think that that raises wider questions than that of the Prime Minister's pension alone, and on this I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the Pensions (Increase) Bill.

Mr. Tapsell: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is an extraordinary disproportion between the compensation given to the chairman of a nationalised industry who is dismissed and that given to distinguished statesmen and Cabinet Ministers after a lifetime's service.

Mr. Howell: I think that that is another question.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the understandable difficulty of English Members getting in on Scottish Questions, is there any way of keeping the Scots out of English Members' Questions?

Mr. Speaker: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's assumption is right. It is difficult, almost impossible, for Englishmen to get into Scottish Questions while I am in the Chair.

Mr. John D. Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any way in which hon. Members can be protected from the growing tendency by the Prime Minister to transfer Questions to Ministers? I have one today to the Prime Minister on the question of the national-

ised industries, a particularly relevant issue, and it has been transferred to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned at this growing tendency on the part of the Prime Minister to dodge matters of this sort.

Mr. Speaker: There is no growing tendency. It has always been in the power of the Prime Minister to transfer Questions addressed to him to whichever Ministry he thinks appropriate. He disappoints the hon. Members who want to put a question to him, but I can do nothing about it.

AIRBUSES

The Minister of Aviation Supply (Mr. Frederick Corfield): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House I wish to make a statement about airbuses.
The House will be aware that the British Aircraft Corporation and Rolls-Royce have asked for launching aid for the BAC311 and its RB211-61 engine at a cost to the Government estimated at some £144 million at present prices. We have also had an invitation from the French, Federal German and Netherlands Governments to rejoin the A300B project. The initial cost to the Government would be some £30 million if we took a share in the airframe part of the A300B project alone, or some £100 million if in addition the RB211–61 engine were also launched for this aircraft. This takes no account of further costs likely to be incurred during the production phase.
After very careful consideration the Government have decided that they cannot support either of these proposals in view of the size of the public investment required. We have to take into account the large sums of money already being devoted to the support of civil aircraft and engines and to bear in mind other calls on public funds.
In the light of this, B.E.A. will have the opportunity to choose between two alternatives, the Lockheed 1011 and the A300B. Both include a large contribution by British industry. The Lockheed 1011 has Rolls-Royce RB211–22 engines, for which Her Majesty's Government recently announced an increase in launching aid


up to a limit of £89 million. As for the A300B, Hawker Siddeley are designing and manufacturing the main part of the wing.
The decision in regard to the A300B does not imply any weakening of our interest in joint projects such as the M.R.C.A., Jaguar and of course Concorde, to each of which Her Majesty's Government are making very substantial contributions.
I have already discussed with my colleagues in the other Governments concerned proposals for a joint study of the possibilities of increased co-operation between European aero-engine industries, and they have recently proposed that we should meet. I welcome these proposals and hope that they can be extended in due course to the rest of the aviation industry.

Mr. William Rodgers: The right hon. Gentleman will know that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, will have been deeply disturbed by his grave news. There will be an unhappy suspicion that the fate of what might have been a fine aircraft, with real export potential, has been settled not on merit but according to preconceptions of public expenditure and public intervention.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a number of questions. First, can he say what the effect on employment will be, including the employment of those sub-contractors whose work may be taken back by B.A.C. as a result of this decision? Second, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear, in confirmation of what his statement seems to say, that B.E.A. will have an unfettered choice of aircraft when the time comes?
Third, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not the Government's intention to support Rolls-Royce in the development of the next generation of RB211 engines, and that is what the decision on the RB211-61 means? Fourth, can the Minister say whether we are now to accept the decline of the airframe industry, an indigenous industry, while options for engines are being kept open? Will he place before the House at the earliest opportunity a White Paper setting out all the facts which his statement does not give as a basis for a debate in Government time?

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of questions. The first relates to the effect on employment. As I understand it, about 500 people have been employed to date on this project at B.A.C. I understand that it is hoped to reduce any redundancies to about 300 at the most.
On the question of overall employment, I am not in a position to differentiate between the estimates of additional jobs that might have been created and the estimates of jobs which would retain people in their present employment. The hon. Gentleman will have to await the decision of the company.
On the matter of B.E.A.'s choice, I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that this is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but there has been no agreement with European countries to force B.E.A. one way or the other.
On the question of the next generation of Rolls-Royce engines, the decision announced today applies only to the -61 engine for one or other of these two aircraft.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the airframe industry was being left to run down. I remind him that we are spending no less than £88 million in launching aid this year. Over the last four years it has averaged £75 million, and over the next four years it is expected to average £70 million.

Mr. William Rodgers: What about the White Paper?

Mr. Corfield: I shall consider giving more information to the House, but I cannot think that a White Paper would be suitable.

Mr. Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on these benches know how much he must regret having to make his statement today? Is he aware that if anyone is to be held to blame for this disappointing decision it is not, as the Front Bench opposite implied, himself, but the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), because it is clear that this Government's ability to support the airframe industry has been gravely damaged by the disastrous costs resulting from the Lockheed-Rolls-Royce contract, which the previous Government underwrote? As so much depends, both for B.A.C. and for the


nation, on the success of Concorde, will my right hon. Friend assure us that this project is still receiving the Government's fullest backing?

Mr. Corfield: The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes", and I think that it is one of the utmost importance that B.A.C. should appreciate, as I am sure it does, that to a large extent its success will depend upon overcoming the technical problems that are outstanding with the greatest possible expedition.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to estimate what effect his decision will have upon the position of Rolls-Royce? Will this mean further launching aid to Rolls-Royce to deal with the situation arising from his statement?

Mr. Corfield: I can see no possible connection between the decision that I have just announced and any demand from Rolls-Royce for further launching aid. As regards the position of Rolls-Royce, the effort in terms of labour employed on the development of the -61 which is in an embryonic stage, has so far not been significant.

Mr. Mather: I sympathise with my right hon. Friend on the dilemma in which he has been placed by the improvidence of the previous Government, but is he aware of the widespread dismay which will be caused in my constituency at Weybridge not only because the jobs of workers and of the design teams have been placed in jeopardy but because we firmly believe that Britain builds the best aircraft? Is my right hon. Friend further aware of the rumour that the vacuum which has been caused by the cancellation of the BAC311 may now be filled by a new Douglas twin-engined aircraft?

Mr. Corfield: We have taken into very careful consideration the employment factors which my hon. Friend mentions. With regard to the gap being filled, the House must appreciate that the BAC311 would have been in direct competition with the A300B, and there is little doubt that there would also have been an American competitor. To a considerable extent, the market for the A300B and the BAC311 overlaps with the shorter-range Tristars, and the American market is facing a considerable cash shortage.

Mr. Jay: Is the Minister aware that many of us deeply regret the Government's decision not to support the BAC311, apparently for the sake of a short-term budget saving, as this is likely to be highly damaging in the long run both to the aircraft industry and to the British balance of payments?

Mr. Corfield: The right hon. Gentleman talks about short-term budget saving. At no stage did any of the calculations, even on the most optimistic assessment of the market, show anything but a very substantial loss for Government funds.

Mr. Temple: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread appreciation of his difficulties, and widespread understanding of the fact that he has not permitted the Government to enter into further open-ended commitments? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that Hawker-Siddeley took on a job which was left in the air by the previous Government, and that the company is to be commended for its private enterprise in going forward with its share of the European airbus?

Mr. Corfield: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the dilemmas that has faced the Government, and the previous Administration no doubt, is that B.A.C.'s application for launching aid would have involved the Government in supporting a project in direct competition with another project in which Hawker-Siddeley was engaged without public assistance.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the Minister tell the House whether at any stage a firm commitment was made by the three European Governments to share in the cost of developing the -61 engine, what proportion of the costs they were prepared to bear if such an offer were made and for what aircraft he sees the -61 engine being developed which could not have been developed with the two engines now rejected by the Government?

Mr. Corfield: The answer to the first part of the question is "No". The second question does not arise. I cannot see any application for the -61 at the moment, and it is not the Government's intention to proceed with it.

Mr. Marten: As one of the important things is to try to keep the British Aircraft


Corporation design team together, will my right hon. Friend say whether B.A.C. has any propositions to put forward about a short take-off passenger plane?

Mr. Corfield: I have had no such propositions brought to my notice. If they are, I shall look at them on their merits.

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman verify two figures which he gave? I understood from what he said that unemployment at Rolls-Royce would be affected by his decision only to the tune of 500. Is that correct? I also understood that the amount of aid still being given to Rolls-Royce is £88 million. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about B.A.C.?

Mr. Corfield: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is a little bit muddled. I was referring to the 500 total staff hitherto employed at B.A.C. I have just been informed by the company that it hopes to keep the redundancies within that 500 to less than 300. That, of course, is in the immediate future. The more distant future will have to be a matter for consideration. What I said about Rolls-Royce was that there had been no significant effort devoted to the -61 in terms of labour up to date.

Mr. Warren: As last week we found that we were having to subsidise the American aircraft industry through Rolls-Royce, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether this week he will consider this decision in relation not only to the British airframe industry but to the 50,000 people in the British aircraft equipment industry who will be affected by it?

Mr. Corfield: I appreciate that the more British aircraft projects there are the more opportunities there are for the avionics and equipment firms, and, of course, they will be disappointed. Nevertheless, we must face the fact that they have had considerable opportunities with Concorde and in the various military programmes—Nimrod, Harrier, Jaguar—and there is no reason to doubt that they will have considerable opportunities with M.R.C.A.

Mr. Benn: As the right hon. Gentleman knows better than I do, the decision announced today is really the watershed decision for the airframe Indus-

try. Will he answer my hon. Friend's question about publishing figures? He referred to calculations, maybe of implied subsidy and implied preference involved in supporting the BAC311 or the A300B. Will he please publish the calculations, because the House cannot reach a judgment unless those calculations are available for study? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether this means that launching aid is not available on public expenditure grounds for projects that might emerge, as this would be a significant change of policy? Will he say whether launching aid can be considered in future?

Mr. Corfield: The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that any application for launching aid, or for any other assistance at any time to any Government, has to be considered against the background of the sum involved, the period over which it is required, the funds available and the other demands upon those funds. This is a characteristic of Government throughout the ages. My present inclination is to see no objection to publishing the figures. I will certainly consider it and discuss it with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wilkinson: I associate myself with the condemnations from this side of the House of the turgid tergiversation of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on this issue. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the British airframe industry does not become the jerry-builder of foreign designs? Will he also make sure that balance of payments interests are paramount and that a virile industry is maintained in the future?

Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend will appreciate that B.A.C. in particular is the British contractor for the largest and most costly civil project that has ever been undertaken, to wit, Concorde.

Mr. Dalyell: To get back to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East, what does the Minister mean by the phrase in his statement, "further costs likely to be incurred" in relation to the BAC311? Is it the suggestion that the B.A.C. calculations are not as frank as they should be? What does it mean?

Mr. Corfield: If the hon. Gentleman had listened he would have appreciated that that remark was entirely in relation to the A300B. It is not in any way a reflection on the calculations of B.A.C. or anyone else. It is clear that the terms we were offered to rejoin the consortium opened up a number of other liabilities, our best estimate of which was that the £30 million entrance fee, so to speak, would probably not be recovered.

Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whilst there will be general understanding of the anxiety expressed by hon. Members in whose constituencies aircraft interests exist, there will be a general welcome for his statement from those of us who hope that, in future, Government procurement policies will reflect a much wiser attitude towards public expenditure? Will he confirm that, as a result of his decision, the nationalised airline companies will have commercial freedom in the choice of the aircraft that they wish to purchase?

Mr. Corfield: I appreciate my hon. Friend's sympathy under both heads, but I remind him that the freedom of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister concede that the development of the RB211-61 engine is an integrated process and that, therefore, his decision today undermines the possibility of technological development and the use of carbon fibres? Secondly, will he indicate clearly that there will be no difficulties in employment of Rolls-Royce workers in Scotland, because we can afford no more redundancies in that region?

Mr. Corfield: I really do not know what the hon. Member means by "integrated process". The -61 is only one of about half-a-dozen variations of the 211 which have been put forward from time to time. As to employment in Scotland, the hon. Member must wait for the decisions by the management of the companies concerned.

Mr. McMaster: As the decision announced by my right hon. Friend will undoubtedly favour Lockheed, particularly in view of the statement by the Chairman of B.E.A. in expressing preference for these aircraft, will he consider

whether it is posible to renegotiate the Rolls-Royce contract with Lockheed in view of the escalation of costs, or would he favour supporting an upgraded Rolls-Royce engine for a more advanced Lockheed?
Will my right hon. Friend also look favourably on the production of a British vertical or short take-off aircraft for the future, in order to protect our research and development teams in the British aircraft industry?

Mr. Corfield: My study of the Lockheed contract and the prospects of renegotiation has proved to be one of the most unproductive exercises I have ever undertaken. As to V.T.O.L. or S.T.O.L. development, my hon. Friend will realise that a very large number of problems have to be considered and overcome before we can look at this as an immediate future project.

Mr. Kinnock: I find difficulty in recalling any specific answer by the Minister to the fourth question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton on Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) concerning the future of the airframe industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman now give a discernible answer to that question so that the fears of people in my constituency may be allayed?

Mr. Corfield: If the hon. Member will have the courtesy to remind me of the question, I shall endeavour to answer it.

Mr. Kinnock: My notes of my hon. Friend's fourth question are probably less copious than those of the Minister. [Interruption.] After all, I am not a Minister. The wording as I have it was whether the Minister would give an undertaking to safeguard against the decline of the airframe industry. I do not have more copious notes than that.

Mr. Corfield: As I have explained already, the amount of launching aid currently being given to the aircraft industry is £88 million this year, £75 million on average over the last four years and an estimated £70 million in the next four years, without taking into account any new project which may come along. That is not the measure of a declining industry.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

BILLS PRESENTED

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY

Mr. Secretary Davies, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Sir John Eden, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Lord Balniel, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, and Mr. David Howell, presented a Bill to provide for the transfer to British Nuclear Fuels Limited and The Radiochemical Centre Limited of parts of the undertaking of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and of property, rights, liabilities and obligations appertaining to those parts of the Authority's undertaking; to make provision with respect to persons employed by the Authority and engaged in those parts of the Authority's undertakings, with respect to the control and finances of the said companies, and with respect to the application of pension schemes maintained by the Authority; to amend the provisions of the Nuclear Installations Act, 1965 relating to permits under section 2 of that Act; to make provision relating to factories, offices, building operations and other works on sites in respect of which such permits are in force; to provide for the application of security provisions where such permits are in force and also where companies are designated by the Secretary of State in connection with an agreement relating to the gas centrifuge process for pro-

ducing enriched uranium; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

LAND COMMISSION (DISSOLUTION)

Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Thomas, Mr. R. Graham Page, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Michael Heseltine, presented a Bill to abolish betterment levy and dissolve the Land Commission; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

CHARITABLE CAUSES (MEDICAL RESEARCH AND DISABLED PERSONS)

Mr. Alfred Morris, supported by Mr. George Darling, Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Neil Marten, Mr. George Thomas, Sir John Foster, Mr. Jack Ashley, and Mr. John Astor, presented a Bill to make provisions in respect of certain competitions organised for charitable causes for the promotion of medical research and to assist chronically sick and disabled persons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th December and to be printed.[Bill 63.]

Orders of the Day — AIR CORPORATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.53 p.m.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before I explain the details of the Bill, I would like to refer to the Chairmen of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I am sure that the House will want to join me in thanking the outgoing Chairmen, Sir Charles Hardie and Sir Anthony Milward, for their services and in welcoming the new Chairmen, Mr. Keith Granville and Mr. Henry Marking. The remaining appointments will be announced very shortly and I know that we can rely on both Boards, and, indeed, all the staff of both Corporations, to continue to serve the country well during the period while the legislation setting up an Airways Board is being introduced and is taking effect.
The object of the Bill is to raise the limits on the loans which B.O.A.C. may raise to finance capital investment. The limits also apply to any temporary borrowings by B.O.A.C. and to any Government investment of public dividend capital in the Corporation, but B.O.A.C. does not expect to need temporary loans in the foreseeable future and I have no plans at present for investing further public dividend capital in the Corporation. The reason, then, for increasing the limits is to enable B.O.A.C. to take up additional borrowings for capital purposes.
The existing limits were set in the Air Corporations Act, 1966, which imposed a limit on the aggregate of B.O.A.C.'s outstanding borrowings and public dividend capital of £90 million, which could be increased to £120 million by Order subject to affirmative Resolution of this House. An Order specifying a limit of £120 million was made last December by the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts), then Minister of State, Board of Trade, who explained that B.O.A.C. expected to reach the new limit by the summer of of 1970. In the event, it has taken a little longer, for reasons which I will explain later, and I now estimate that

B.O.A.C.'s borrowings and reckonable public dividend capital will reach the £120 million mark by the end of March, 1971.
The House will expect me to say how this money has been spent before I explain why the additional sums provided for in the Bill are needed. As the then Minister of State explained when speaking to the Order last December, B.O.A.C.'s capital liabilities at 1st April, 1965, consisted of £31 million of loan capital and £35 million of public dividend capital, all deemed to have been taken up at that date under the Air Corporations Act, 1966, which provided for B.O.A.C.'s financial reconstruction. The total of £66 million reckoned against the limit of £90 million.
Since 1965, all B.O.A.C.'s borrowings have consisted of foreign currency loans negotiated with United States finance institutions, with Swiss banks and a Canadian bank, to finance progress and delivery payments on Boeing 747 and 707/336 aircraft and some other expenditure on capital projects overseas. B.O.A.C. has been required to raise finance in this way to meet dollar investment in order to conserve official dollars.
B.O.A.C. has financed all sterling investment since 1965 from its own cash resources. This includes about £30 million on Super VCIO aircraft and spares, a further £30 million on buildings and roughly the same amount on plant, machinery and equipment. Furthermore, the Corporation has repaid the whole of the Government loan of £31 million deemed to have been advanced in April 1965. This loan was being redeemed in instalments and a sum of £16·9 million was shown in B.O.A.C.'s 1969–70 accounts as still outstanding at 31st March, 1970. In June this year, the Corporation prematurely redeemed the whole outstanding sum out of its own resources. This explains why the limit of £120 million is lasting rather longer than predicted last December.
By March, 1971, the £120 million will consist of the original £35 million of public dividend capital deemed to have been invested in 1965 plus about £85 million of outstanding foreign currency loans which reckon against the statutory limit. By then, B.O.A.C. expects to have taken delivery of three Boeing 747s in addition to the three delivered last


May, a total of six in all, which, together with its fleet of eight Boeing 707–336Cs, will have been financed very largely by dollar loans. B.O.A.C. also expects to have taken delivery by March 1971 of one of the two Boeing 707–336Bs which the previous Government agreed that B.O.A.C. could buy, primarily for use on the trans-Siberian route to Japan. The House was told of this order on 18th December last year by the then President of the Board of Trade.
I come to the new limits of £250 million and £380 million provided for in this Bill. These are very considerable sums, representing at the maximum an increase of £260 million over B.O.A.C.'s present limit. I should explain that the higher figure has been calculated as the amount the Corporation seems likely to need to borrow to finance capital investment over the next five years; that is, until early 1976. The intermediate limit, which can be exceeded only after a draft Order has been approved by this House, should last until early 1974.
Legislation to create an Airways Board, to which I referred during the debate on 24th November, will provide for borrowing limits which will include the borrowings of and any investment of public dividend capital in the Airways Board as well as the external borrowings of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. It will, therefore, overtake the limits provided for in this Bill. I should have preferred to dispense with the present Bill and to wait for this new legislation; but B.O.A.C.'s borrowing powers are nearing exhaustion and, since the Bill is necessary, I thought it right to follow the normal practice in dealing with borrowing powers for nationalised industries by providing for B.O.A.C.'s requirements for about five years ahead.
The new limits allow, first, for dollar loans B.O.A.C. will need to call on after March 1971, amounting to some £44 million, to complete payments on six more Boeing 747s due for delivery between September 1971 and April 1972, and to some £3 million for the second Boeing 707–336B. These loans have already been negotiated in the United States. In addition, the Government have recently agreed that B.O.A.C. may purchase a new Boeing 707–336C at a cost of £4 million, to replace the Super VC10

destroyed in Jordan, of which about 40 per cent. of the cost will be raised by a loan from the Export Import Bank of New York.
We then had to make an assessment of the capacity B.O.A.C. is likely to need from the end of 1972 onwards to replace some of its existing aircraft and to provide for further expansion. B.O.A.C. has forecast that, on the asumption that 20 per cent. of the cost will be met from B.O.A.C.'s internal resources, it will need to raise foreign currency loans for this purpose of some £154 million over the period to early 1976 to finance 80 per cent. of the cost of further United States aircraft, and that about £53 million of this total will be needed by early 1974.
I should emphasise that B.O.A.C. will need to make a case to me for approval for this further investment, and that it will be subject to scrutiny by me, but I think its torward projections seem reasonable so far as the state of the industry can be foreseen for a period so far ahead.
We have also had to make an assessment of the expenditure B.O.A.C. is likely to be incurring during this period by way of progress and delivery payments on Concorde. This and other sterling investment, for example in plant, machinery, equipment and buildings, B.O.A.C. expects to be able to finance from its own internally generated cash flow until about the end of 1971. Thereafter, B.O.A.C. will need additional capital which I am assuming will be met by advances from the National Loans Fund. This may account for a sum approaching £200 million of which rather less than half will be needed by early in 1974.
It would be appropriate for me to comment on B.O.A.C.'s financial performance and prospects. Hon. Members will need no reminder of B.O.A.C.'s excellent record of profits over the last five years. It is true that the 1965–66 financial reconstruction gave the Corporation a fresh start by writing off an accumulated deficit and setting up a reconstruction reserve. But B.O.A.C. has, by its own efforts, taken full advantage of the opportunity this presented to operate as a fully commercial undertaking and it was able to record in its 1969–70 Report that profits from 1965–66 and 1969–70 were high enough to have


eliminated the deficit accumulated by March, 1965, and to pay interest on all capital, without a financial reconstruction.
As it is, the Corporation has paid to the Government more by way of dividends and interest than it would have paid without a reconstruction. I take this opportunity to say that it is the policy of this Government to continue to give B.O.A.C. encouragement to maintain its successful record of profitability.
Nevertheless, it would not be right for me to raise expectations that B.O.A.C.'s profits over the next five years will continue to reach the high levels of the last five. International airlines throughout the world are in a phase of declining profits, due in part to too much capacity being offered because of the introduction of wide-bodied aircraft and, in part, to inflation pushing up costs faster than revenues.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman was brief and non-controversial. His speech was also very thin.
I wish at the outset to join him in expressing thanks to Sir Charles Hardie for his service to B.O.A.C. and for the success he achieved while in office. Under his chairmanship, B.O.A.C. has done well.
While the right hon. Gentleman welcomed the chairman-designate, Mr. Keith Granville, he hinted that his tenure of office may not be as successful because B.O.A.C., with other civil airlines, may be in a period of cyclical decline. There may, as a consequence, be much more difficulty ahead for the occupant of Sir Charles Hardie's seat.
My hon. Friends and I welcome the Bill. We recognised when we brought forward a borrowing powers Measure in 1969, which was for quite a small amount, that B.O.A.C. would be in need of further finance. Indeed, had we been in government now we would have been introducing a Bill such as the one before the House today.
This is likely to be the last borrowing powers Measure before we have major civil aviation legislation profoundly affecting B.O.A.C. Within the time scale of the initial borrowing requirements under this Measure, legislation may be enacted to establish the Civil Aviation Authority and the Airways Board. It is difficult

to foresee clearly how the Civil Aviation Authority will affect B.O.A.C., particularly its finances, but B.O.A.C. will undoubtedly visualise the Airways Board being to its advantage.
When we prepared our White Paper flowing from Edwards, we visualised—I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates this—that there would be bound initially under the Airways Board to be a marrying of common services such as freight handling, hotels and computer development. On this latter point, if B.O.A.C., with its Boadicea computer system, and B.E.A., with its Beacon computer system, had developed each system uniformly from the outset, I doubt if we would have spent as much as £72 million on these two separate computer systems.
Then there is the question of marketing, and here there is a good possibility of a merger, along with the development of inclusive tours. These could sensibly be merged to the advantage of both Corporations, with many subsequent savings.
I therefore wonder, since this legislation will be introduced during the time of this borrowing period, if all these points have been taken into consideration, particularly since the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the initial sum in the Bill and the other sum which will follow by way of an Order to be laid later. It seems that this could very much affect B.O.A.C.'s finances.
Allied with this is the possibility that in the next Session the Board will be established and, as a result, B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. could be merged, thereby bringing into being for the first time a national and international airline under one flag and one Board. This is quite feasible within the borrowing timetable envisaged under the Bill.
The Minister has so far not revealed his thoughts on the possible merger or on its timing. This is bound to affect the borrowing requirements of B.O.A.C., so I invite him to tell us what he has in mind. A merger of services could mean less borrowing, aircraft and maintenance, an effect on employment, route nationalisation, more efficient use of aircraft and services, and so on, if the Corporations get together fairly quickly.
As the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, and it was gratifying to the House to hear him, B.O.A.C. has done


very well. He said that it had made excellent progress in recent times. Over the last six years it has been showing good operating surpluses and an accumulated figure of £133·7 million, culminating, in the Corporation's last full financial year, in an operating surplus of £31·1 million.
From March, 1966, to March, 1977, we as a Government set a target of return on net assets of 12½ per cent., but over this period B.O.A.C. has managed an overall return of 17·4 per cent. Last year, also, the amount of revenue earned in foreign currency was a record at £136·7 million. Those hon. Members, especially on the other side of the House, who had doubts about the benefits of public dividend capital must agree that it has been a worthy innovation for B.O.A.C. and, indeed, has been to the benefit of the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman made some reference to the success that B.O.A.C. has achieved, and that success is spelled out in the Corporation's annual report. It states:
Some may be tempted to give all the credit for this profit record to the fact that B.O.A.C.'s financial structure was re-shaped by the Air Corporations Act, 1966 which wrote off £79·9 million of losses and created a reconstruction reserve of £30·1 million as of 1st April, 1965. This reconstruction was necessary and has played an important part in setting B.O.A.C.'s feet on the road to success.
Having said that, however, it can now be recorded that had no capital reconstruction taken place B.O.A.C.'s profits during the subsequent five years would have been sufficient both to pay appropriate interest on all capital provided by H.M.G. and to eliminate by 31st March, 1970 the loss of £79·9 million that had accumulated at 31st March, 1965.
Let me therefore say to B.O.A.C. that this also gives enormous pleasure to those in this House who are keen to see the successful development of our civil aviation Corporations.
B.O.A.C., like most of its international competitors, has been riding high on top of the aviation industry's cycle, but the decline may now have begun. The first sign was clearly given yesterday with the publication of B.O.A.C.'s half-yearly report showing a net profit of £8½ million, which is down from £11·7 million in the same period last year. There were many factors in this. Hijacking security precautions have cost something. There

has been a loss of revenue from the idle 747s. Competitors operating 747s are creaming off some of the North Atlantic market. There has been a fall in Middle East traffic. But apart from these special factors I think that everyone realises that the civil aviation industry is entering a period of cyclical decline and, indeed, international competitors are on the slide faster than is B.O.A.C.
The short-term concern for B.O.A.C. is very evident. Unit costs are rising and revenue yields are falling. Smaller surpluses are expected next year. Wages and fuel costs are on the increase. And, apart from a slowing down of growth in the United Kingdom market, operators are concerned about over-capacity generally in civil aviation allied with the progressive fall in average fares. And all this at a time when the Government are hell-bent on a course of taking away £6 million of annual route revenue, mainly from B.O.A.C. This will severly injure the Corporation at a time of down-turn in its operations and it shows an almost callous indifference to public Corporation's difficulties.
With reference to the Corporation's down-turn in profits, does the right hon. Gentleman still think that the forecast he gave in the statement which he issued from the Board of Trade on 3rd August dealing with a second force independent airline is right? In paragraph 6 of that statement he said:
Forecasts of inter-continental traffic point to an expansion of about 14 per cent. a year up to 1975.
He gave that expansion as one of the major reasons for hiving off profitable routes from B.O.A.C. We would like to know whether that forecast of a 14 per cent. per annum increase in intercontinental traffic to 1975 is still true, especially having in mind United States aviation companies' difficulties—as well as those, apparently, of our major Corporation—because if those forecasts are wrong the right hon. Gentleman should think afresh about this hiving off of so many profitable routes from B.O.A.C.
We might have had more information from the right hon. Gentleman about the Boeing 747s. We have ordered 12 of them at a cost of £120 million. The right hon. Gentleman said that three have already arrived and that three will come early next year. The trouble is


that the three that have arrived are standing idle. There are mounting losses because of the B.O.A.C.-B.A.L.P.A. dispute on manning and rates of pay. There are various reports of the losses, but it would appear that B.O.A.C. is losing about £25,000 a day, which means that it may already have lost between £4 million and £5 million. The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the House now, especially when we are dealing with a B.O.A.C. borrowing powers Bill, to what extent the Corporation has suffered because of this dispute, and how much it has lost because of these invaluable assets standing idle at Heathrow. He should also tell us when the dispute is likely to be resolved. Apart from the obvious waste of assets, the loss of North Atlantic traffic has still to be recaptured. I hope that we may be told more about that.
The Minister referred to possible payments for Concorde in 1971. Within this future borrowing, investment in Concorde by B.O.A.C. must play a part, even with the initial payment under the Bill and not necessarily waiting for payment under the Order. B.O.A.C. has made it clear that it would like to go supersonic, and it is a potential customer for eight Concordes. However, there are doubts about the future of the aircraft, and surely this is the time, before moneys are earmarked by B.O.A.C. for the purchase, to have those doubts removed.
I do not want to damn this project. It is a fine technical achievement and a classic example of Anglo-French co-operation, and it is a pace setter in supersonic aviation. Neither do I want to feed the anti-Concorde American lobby. Unfortunately, the United States can determine Concorde's life or death: the 16 airlines which have the first 74 options on Concorde will certainly be awaiting the final American reaction.
But one must question the commercial investment and its return to B.O.A.C. The Government cannot get a commercial return on their investment—that is recognised without doubt. The estimated cost of the research and development on the Anglo-French Concordes has now risen to £825 million. Actual costs so far are £240 million by the United Kingdom and £220 million by France, and from this month to the end of the project another £165 million will be required by the

United Kingdom and another £200 million from France, a total investment—although I hesitate to say that because no doubt it will go higher, but at this stage—of £825 million.
The most recent estimate of the cost of the Concorde aircraft is more than £12 million. Therefore, B.O.A.C. will be expected to purchase its initial option of eight at a cost of at least £100 million. Do the Government really believe that B.O.A.C. can operate this costly aircraft and obtain a satisfactory financial return?

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I do not wish to be controversial, but I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would say on what he bases the cost figure he has given.

Mr. Mason: I have had to glean the cost from the reliable aviation journals, which estimated in 1968 that the cost of a Concorde aircraft would be about £10 million. Since then, because of inflation in wages, and so on, the cost has risen to about £12 million. A lot will depend upon to what extent the Government are prepared to write down investment in research and development. The cost could be much more than that, but I have been conservative and I wish to be helpful in the hope that we can extract from the Minister some general views about how Concorde will be able to go into service with B.O.A.C. with B.O.A.C. extracting a satisfactory financial return.
I should like to know from the Minister what will be B.O.A.C.'s position. Concorde looks like being an extremely costly aircraft. Will B.O.A.C. have to take it? Will the Government decree that it is in the national interest and foist this aircraft on B.O.A.C. irrespective of their commercial judgment? If so, will they consider compensating B.O.A.C. for its losses? That may seem a little hypothetical and a matter of questioning a little ahead of time, but the Bill asks for sums of money, some of which will be used for the purchase and operating of Concorde aircraft. Therefore, some indication of the Government's thinking about this aircraft being introduced into service by B.O.A.C. should be given at a time when the Government are asking for moneys with which Concorde might be purchased.
This Bill and the subsequent order cover a period of heavy investment by


B.O.A.C., not just in supersonic aircraft, but in wide-bodied aircraft. B.O.A.C. has been quite frank about the aircraft. It has said that its studies have not yet shown that its operation of Concorde would have a beneficial effect on its overall financial results. So at this stage it sees Concorde as a loss-maker and yet all the research and development costs—£825 million so far and no doubt more to come—have not yet come to light. B.O.A.C. is among the most successful airlines in the world. I wonder how the others are reacting.
I know that next year the two Governments involved will be considering afresh the future of this project, but it so happens that the moneys for B.O.A.C.'s investment programme are being considered now. Therefore, this is the time for the Minister to give an explanation before this proposed extra borrowing is agreed.
The Opposition do not oppose the Bill, but I hope that when the Minister replies he will give us an indication about when the aviation Bill covering the Civil Aviation Authority and the Airways Board is likely to be introduced. Will he tell us to what extent B.O.A.C. has lost money on the three idle Boeing 747s? What does he feel about the possibility of B.O.A.C. having to take Concorde irrespective of cost? These questions are relevant to this Bill, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give satisfactory and substantial replies.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I have no intention of detaining the House long because there is later important business to occupy the minds of hon. Members, but there are one or two points which I should like to make, and, if not provoked, I shall try to be non-controversial.
First—and it seems that an increasing number of my contributions in the Chamber begin with this comment—I wish that we had a more explanatory Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. Not for the first time I am led to suggest that much of the valuable background information in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade could have been made available to the House earlier and without difficulty by its being incorporated in the Explanatory Memorandum.
I do not believe the final sentence of the Explanatory Memorandum, which reads:
The Bill will cause no changes in the number of industrial or non-industrial civil servants or in the numbers of staff employed by B.O.A.C.".
If B.O.A.C. is to make use of the powers in the Bill which enable it to borrow three times the amount of money which it is at present authorised to borrow, it is very likely that it will end up employing more people. Why it was thought appropriate to put this normally welcome phrase in the Explanatory Memorandum I do not know. I do not want to be told the answer to that, but I do not believe what it says.
On both sides of the House—and let there be no party wrangling about this matter—there is a genuine desire that B.O.A.C. should flourish and should go from success to success. We may differ about the precise reasons for the success it has been able to claim in its latest accounts. There are people who see its success as stemming at least in part from decisions on aircraft purchases, which represented a conscious desire to limit the capacity which the Corporation was prepared to try to sell and to maximise its profit in that way. Some people have bitter memories about cancellations of VC10s and matters of that kind, but it will do us no good to dwell on them now. Neither side of the House should be doubted when it says that it wishes B.O.A.C. to succeed, even though it may not wish it success for precisely the same reasons.
We see a reflection in the latest published figures of business which has been lost to B.O.A.C., as it has been lost to other airlines, as a result of the hijackings last summer. B.O.A.C. deserves a degree of credit from the people of this country for the high standard of security which it has since maintained and for the fact which is comparatively rare among international airlines, that it can claim to have detected more than one would-be hijacker before he succeeded in boarding the aero-plane.
The more serious and avoidable shortfalls in profit in the latest figures stem from the continuing deadlock over the Boeing 747s. The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) was right to draw attention to this matter. I do not believe that it can be any consolation


to B.O.A.C. to have the most modified and no doubt the safest Boeing 747s in airline service. The engines have been brought up to date. The wings cannot be in danger of falling off because they have scarcely been flexed. The fact that these very expensive devices are safe is no compensation for the fact that these aircraft are lying in a corner of the tarmac.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Rusting.

Mr. Onslow: I trust that they are not rusting.
We know the reasons for this and we must wish that the deadlock could be broken. For a long time there has been a complete communications block between the B.O.A.C. management and its pilots. I will not try to attribute reasons for it; I merely state it as a fact which we all know. It was recognised on page 24 of the Corporation's Annual Report for 1968–69, which states:
It is a matter for great regret that relations with B.A.L.P.A. proved unsatisfactory and very careful consideration is being given to ways and means of improving the atmosphere in which important outstanding negotiations in respect of pilots' salary and working conditions will have to be conducted.
I am at a loss to see from the way in which events have developed what
new ways and means of improving the atmosphere
have been found. They do not appear to have yielded any significant results, even though there have been changes in the negotiating team on the B.A.L.P.A. side and even though the pilots do not wish to be obstructive but are prepared to be conciliatory. I hope that Mr. Keith Granville's advent in office as Chairman of the Corporation will be marked by real progress being made to solve this intractable problem. If nothing else, there might be an agreement on an interim basis to get 747 crew training going and to leave the final negotiation of a formula to a later date. Something along those lines might commend itself to both sides.
I repeat a proposal which I am conscious of having made before and in which I have had the unlooked-for backing of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), that the Nationalised Industries Committee eventually might have to interest itself in this apparently

insoluble problem. It must be of concern to us, not just in the context of current industrial disputes but as a general matter, that there is this continuing deadlock in a vital area of industrial relations and that the reasons for it should be so difficult to detect.
If I might interpolate a point here, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if we could get B.O.A.C.'s 747s, present and prospective into the air, it might be possible for the corporation to dispose of the 707s which would become surplus to requirements by selling them to B.E.A. for use by B.E.A. Airtours, instead of Airtours having to import at considerable dollar cost other secondhand 707s from the other side of the Atlantic, as it proposes at present. Given that one of the consequences of the statement that we heard earlier today must be a higher commitment to dollar purchases of aircraft, I hope that this point will receive serious consideration.
The next matter is the Concorde. I am not as pessimistic about it as the right hon. Member for Barnsley appears to be. I believe that it is a project which will succeed on its merits and that its merits are becoming steadily more obvious. When the right hon. Gentleman read a statement of the latest B.O.A.C. attitude to the Concorde, he might have recognised that it represents a considerable step forward from the sort of impression that we tended to get from B.O.A.C. some six months ago. In other words, there has been a detectable increase in the corporation's enthusiasm for the Concorde as a vehicle. It still sees problems, of course, but it is no longer true that the Hastings and Thanet Building Society has given Concorde more publicity than B.O.A.C. However, there is room for Air France to put itself behind the success of the Concorde, for this is a project in which the French nation is just as interested as we are. Although there must be doubts until the final details are known, and although that cannot be yet because the manufacturers have not done all their calculations, the fact that there are doubts does not mean that they will not be resolved. It certainly does not mean that the Concorde will not prove a success in airline service.
At present, we hear it said that the distinctive noise of the 747 is made by the people inside it screaming for drinks.
When the Concorde is in service, we shall get back to real first-class air travel. The conditions in terms of time on the journey which are critical to those who might be called professional air travellers and in terms of the kind of service that they can expect in the air and on the ground at each end will be so superior to the kind of flying omnibus that the 747 really is, that there will be no question about their willingness to pay a premium fare. As soon as B.O.A.C. and Air France put the Concorde into general airline service, I believe that we shall find the first class lounges of the 747s empty, and that the passengers will move to the faster, more comfortable and more efficient vehicle.

Mr. J. T. Price: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that interesting point, a genuine doubt which arises in the minds of the critics of the Concorde's further development and the vast expenditure of capital required to make it a viable aircraft is what will be the number of special travellers who can or will be willing to pay a premium fare for this kind of travel. No one can make any estimate of the number of people likely to be available to ride in this very expensive aircraft. That is the real economic sticking point.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Neither he nor I can prove that we are right in what we say on this point. It would be absurd to suggest otherwise. If he were to press me to produce an additional reason, I would say that I believe that those who look into the medical aspects of air travel have also established another advantage which the Concorde will have over slower vehicles in that it will cut the amount of time that a passenger has to spend in an air-conditioned and pressurised atmosphere to below the level at which he begins to suffer seriously from the effects of dehydration. On similar flights in a 747, he spends two, three or four hours beyond that critical point and the effects on him and his efficiency when he gets to his destination are measurable and established. What is more, they are known to the people who cover 200,000 miles a year by air. I do not say that I am one of them, or that the hon. Gentleman is. But there are a growing number of people who come into that category and who, understandably, as they are pre-

pared to pay for a more efficient means of giving dictation or transmitting their ideas, will be willing to pay for a more efficient means of carrying themselves round the world. I think that I will be proved right in this because I regard myself as being on the side of progress. But when it comes to it, the hon. Gentleman and I can go into a corner and talk it over again.
I conclude on this point. B.O.A.C. has a new Chairman. In his initial remarks on taking up his new appointment he has done much to carry the kind of conviction that he should. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Barnsley must have been pleased to hear Mr. Granville say, among other things, that he sees no difficulty in offsetting the business loss of the transfer of routes to the second force in which B.O.A.C. would be involved. By that, he meant that vigorous management and a competitive attitude would very soon recover the ground which would be lost in the process of transfer. That is all to the good, and I believe that it is the optimists who will be proved right rather than the pessimists. I hope that the right hon. Member for Barnsley will not mind if I say that I trust that in due time we shall be able to welcome him amongst the optimists.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Time is very much on our minds, and I do not want to strain the indulgence of the House. I intend to make a few observations and ask one or two probing questions of my right hon. Friend.
It is obvious that the borrowing powers are necessary in view of the long-term re-equipment programme of B.O.A.C. However, one factor that is extremely disturbing is the dollar element involved. I would like further and more detailed elucidation from my right hon. Friend. Earlier today the House received news from the Minister for Aviation Supply, which concerned another corporation, admittedly, but which will incur the country in a vast addition of dollar expenditure for the purchase of foreign aircraft that we should be building ourselves.
B.O.A.C.'s record of profit has not only been achieved by the Guthrie reforms and by the limitation of the amount of capacity offered to the market: it was


achieved also by having the most admirable aircraft in its class, the indigenously-built VC10. The British airframe and manufacturing industry should take credit for the achievement that led to the profit made by B.O.A.C. which we have been praising for the last few years.
If my right hon. Friend succeeds in catching your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will give us a few assurances about long-term plans in terms of dollar expenditure by B.O.A.C. on the purchase of foreign aircraft.
The Government envisage the establishment of an Air Holdings Board and they intend to superimpose it on the two corporations. When that occurs, it is not entirely hypothetical to say that it could rationally lead to the establishment of a British Airways Corporation. When this examination of route structures takes place under the Air Holdings Board, it could well come out of its deliberations that an extended version, let us say of the Lockheed Tristar, would fulfil British Overseas Airways Corporation's requirements exceedingly well. In that case, it will involve an even higher dollar cost.
I do not know how we are to pay for this sort of dollar expenditure. Take, for example, the balance of payments in May. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), then Prime Minister, was saying that it would lead to a balance of payments crisis just to import three Jumbo jets. Yet we are to have a fleet of no fewer than 12. These matters really should exercise our minds in the long term.
Then there is the question of Concorde. I was delighted at the bold statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). He has always had faith in the British industry, and rightly so. I should still like a further positive statement of affirmation from my right hon. Friend on Concorde because B.O.A.C.s future is staked on that aircraft. I believe it is the right aircraft for the job in the late 1970s. There will be a requirement for premium travel, with a premium fare. The market has always gone to the fastest airliner with the shortest journey time.
We can be certain that if we lose faith the French will not, and the blue-riband on the Atlantic will be sported by Air France if B.O.A.C. shows any

pusillanimity or faint-heartedness over Concorde. That is another matter for which we are legislating.
These extra funds will pay for the investment on Concorde, and I believe they are well spent. They are well spent today when B.A.C. has already received one hard knock. If it were to receive another hard knock over Concorde, indigenous British airliner construction would come to a halt overnight.
Route transfers, to which the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) alluded, are a once-for-all transaction. The transfer of the West African routes is a comparatively small matter when taken into account with the rest of the route structure of B.O.A.C. It is a permanent structure. More important than that is this. When the Air Holdings Board gets to work, and perhaps when we get the greater degree of co-operation and rationalisation leading to my hypothetical merger, I would hope that the second force will be free, where I.A.T.A. allows it, to compete much more freely with the State corporation because it is from competition with the independent sector, with the second force, that the spur to still greater efficiency will come for B.O.A.C.
I shall be looking to a dual designation on the North Atlantic. This will be to the benefit of B.O.A.C. If there is a marginal decrease in profit for B.O.A.C. on that route, the overall British share will be increased, and there again we have by this Bill financed borrowing powers which in the short term might be necessary.
On the question of pilot relations, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. There has been far too little understanding by management of the problems faced by air crew, and, obviously, vice-versa. We must take into account the fact that in these days air crew in the State corporations are exceedingly highly-trained personnel. They look for their occupation not only in the British market but also in the worldwide market, and we are competing in the world market for their services. Thanks to the cripplingly high marginal rate of taxation in this country, they are particularly badly served for being loyal to the British corporations and to British aviation. We really must open up these avenues of communication


if valuable investments in dollar terms and in financial terms generally are not to be left idle.
I hope my right hon. Friend will be encouraging a much greater participation by air crew in management in the corporation, because this will be helpful in the longer term.
I shall say no more now, as we are to discuss God's time very shortly, except that I heartily support and endorse this Measure.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Russell Kerr: I shall be even briefer than the two preceding speakers.
Several matters have arisen from the debate to which I should like to refer. First of all, very unusually, and, I am sure, to his acute embarrassment, I find myself in agreement on two points with the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). First, I completely agree that it would have been more useful if we could have had a somewhat fuller introduction in the Bill itself rather than in the opening remarks of the Minister. It would have been to the general convenience of hon. Members interested in the subject if we could have seen it in print earlier, and it would have helped us in forming our thoughts about these matters.
Secondly—and this may surprise the hon. Gentleman even more—I agree with the substance of his remarks on the Concorde aircraft. Therefore, to some extent I part company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) on this vexed question.
Of course, there are doubts. It can only be a pretty evenly balanced argument because many of the factors that we are trying to weigh or measure are not as yet known. But I believe there are two things that should bring us, on balance, still down on the side of continuing with the Concorde project. The first is what has now become a very decisive time-lead in terms of entry into the supersonic field in commercial flying. What a short while ago appeared to be a two or three year lead at the most looks, if one judges from reports emanating from Washington recently, as though it may now be doubled or even trebled in time. Although there are certain disadvantages in that we may

be doing the testing run, so to speak, for the American aviation industry, none the less there are also great commercial advantages in having this sort of lead into the supersonic commercial flying era.
The other thing which ought to be said is on the question of the spin-off effects of this great enterprise. This is not a very easy matter to weigh up and decide upon, but I was confirmed in my suspicion that they could in the long run be of the greatest possible importance to our future prosperity and economic health by reference to a conversation that I had some months ago with a friend—he is not a close friend—who happens to be an eminent scientist and technologist and who has a profound knowledge of the technology as well as the economics of aircraft manufacture and related subjects. I deliberately played devil's advocate, putting to him the anti-Concorde lobby's point of view, more or less. I will not go into the details of the answer that he gave, but he summed up his feelings very well by saying—and he has no axe to grind—"Look, old man, if it were a question of towing them up to the top of a cliff and pushing them over, I would still be in favour of this project going ahead".
That is, perhaps, a very dramatic way of putting it, but it left its impact on me. He was alluding to the spin-off effects, and here he was eminently qualified to speak because his disciplines range from physics to technology, chemistry, engineering and various other matters. Although I have deliberately refrained from mentioning his name, he is also a very well-known figure in broadcasting and television on these subjects. He persuaded me that there was this tremendous follow-through benefit for us if we would go ahead.
My next point relates to the question of these enormous sums of money to which reference has been made from time to time, and to which the Minister alluded in his speech. There are vast amounts of public money which over the years have been put into Concorde and various other aerospace projects of that sort. I will not weary the House by the classical statement of the case for the socialisation of the aircraft industry, but I still profoundly believe that justice demands no less than that. I have always been against the Conservative policy of "socialising"


the losses and "privatising" the profits of the aircraft industry.
In passing, may I say to the House and to hon. Members opposite, in particular, that when I listen to them expressing their good wishes for the continued prosperity of B.O.A.C.—and at this point in the drama the tears start to roll—all I can say is that, if they want to show an earnest of their good wishes, they might even at this late hour reverse their decision about the "second force" private airline and by such an act of redemption and cancellation, pay a real tribute to B.O.A.C. and its future.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I trust that when the hon. Gentleman used the words "pay tribute" he meant them in a purely verbal sense. We become accustomed sometimes to paying tribute in other senses.
In supporting this Bill, which is not a very novel position to adopt today, I should like to say how pleased I am—and I am sure that all my former colleagues in B.O.A.C. are also pleased—that Keith Granville has been appointed Chairman of that Corporation. We all regard him as a professional in the airline business, who has devoted his life to his airline, and whose whole motivation, even at times when he and I did not quite see eye to eye—and that does not relate only to the second force—has always been what he thought was the good of his airline, as he has always regarded it.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Hear, hear.

Mr. Tebbit: I particularly welcome his utterly tough and professional approach, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), towards this second force, which is "O.K., now I will go out and get the business to make up for this." This is absolutely creditable. It is the right attitude, and clearly already that spur of competition is moving even a man as fast off the mark as Keith Granville to greater efforts for his airline.

Mr. Russell Kerr: It still does not excuse what hon. Members opposite have done.

Mr. Tebbit: It does not excuse it. It does not need an excuse. It explains it

more fully to those who could not see the point the other night.
While talking about B.O.A.C.'s position as a borrower, and particularly as a borrower of foreign currency, we should also remember its position as an earner of foreign currency. It has been an outstanding earner of foreign currency for many years. Much of this money is not going only on foreign aircraft. Much of it will be devoted to the capital equipment necessary to operate these aircraft. Very substantial sums are involved, and almost all of it will be devoted to British equipment and will undoubtedly help to sell similar British equipment overseas. Spin-off goes a long way.
This is possibly the best moment for us all to wish Keith Granville well with his Corporation, and to recognise the difficulties which he is facing. One difficulty which has not been mentioned is the question of the third London Airport, which we could discuss for many hours. Sufficient to say that when the report arrives eventually, all the airlines of this country and foreign operators will need it to be acted upon quickly.
As one who was involved in the past in the unhappy disputes between the pilots and B.O.A.C., I wish to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking and by other hon. Members. It is a tragic dispute. It has been investigated in one form or another by a considerable number of outside bodies. I shall, no doubt, refer to it again if I have the good fortune to catch the eye of the Chair on another matter. For the moment, I say only that one does not have to picket in order to run a strike if one really knows how to do it, and perhaps right hon. and hon. Members opposite may be surprised to know that we have some knowledge of these matters nowadays on our side of the House.
Above all, in view of the history of outside intervention, it would be prudent of us all to try to settle these disputes, bearing in mind that a dispute still rankles, and that, perhaps, secret diplomacy is best in these matters. In the end, the two parties must come together and understand each other. For my part, I believe that there is a severe weakness of middle management in the Corporation, and this is much of the trouble.


But, if anyone is to intervene from outside, I suggest that he does it by taking the two leading participants away quietly, not telling anyone, to a hotel room, setting in a suitable supply of victuals, and making sure that they sit down and come to an agreement which is not imposed on them from outside. That, of course, could have relevance to other disputes as well.
I do not see the future for the industry as being so dark as the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) painted it. Ten years ago, everyone saw a dark future for the airline industry, but it came out into a period of almost unparalleled prosperity. The provisions which we are making today will enable B.O.A.C. to take part in another wave of outstanding prosperity, and I am happy to support the Bill.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: In following my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit), who has a detailed practical knowledge of the problems of the air Corporations, I wish to say how much I, too, should like to see an early solution to the 747 dispute. It is a great pity to see these large aircraft—three of them now—sitting on the tarmac at London Airport. We have seen them there for six months or more, and the waste of public money involved is really a disgrace. I am sure that what my hon. Friend said is correct. The only way to settle the dispute is for the parties to come together, face up to it, and come to a working solution.
I thought that the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) showed a rather cavalier attitude to the expenditure of public money on the development of Concorde. I agree with most of what he said about the benefits of spin-off, but one cannot put out of one's mind that the cost to date, as the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) said, is about £825 million, and who doubts that the final bill may come nearer to £1,000 million, split between France and Britain? This is a very large sum of money to go on two development aircraft in pre-production and another which will be destroyed in testing. At a figure nearing £1,000 million, even the most optimistic forecast of sales at about 80 or 90 aircraft makes it more than £10

million per aircraft, before we really start building any Concordes at all.

Mr. Russell Kerr: But will not the hon. Gentleman agree that, using our imagination and projecting into the wider industrial field, we must accept that even these seemingly astronomical sums may well be only a small down payment on a very prosperous economic future?

Mr. McMaster: I think that the hon. Gentleman is looking rather further into the future than a reasonably prudent man would. I was forecasting sales of 80 or 90 aircraft, and that goes for 10, 15 or 20 years ahead. Who can see as far ahead as that in aviation?
I come now to one or two questions to my right hon. Friend, and I take, first, the forecast merger of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. under the Air Holdings Board. How would this affect the borrowing powers, and, in particular, would it enable B.O.A.C. to plan through routes to America and the Continent? Does the hon. Gentleman foresee that it will assist our traffic? One knows from flying to America, for example, that an airline which can offer through travel to the West Coast is in a better position than one which can fly only to the East Coast of America. The same can work in reverse, flying through London to Continental destinations, principally Paris, but also to places in Italy and Germany and elsewhere.
I cannot agree with all the pessimism which has been expressed earlier in the debate. The whole country today seems to be indulging in a bout of self-examination and pessimism. Inflation is a problem, but I feel that we are a little over-obsessed at the moment with ideas of recession. Let us remember that what we are talking about is a fall in the rate of increase in the gross national product. It is a small matter of 1 or 2 per cent. at the most, and it is in the rate of increase. The growth of the gross national product goes on from year to year; the country grows wealthier at an astonishing rate, and the world does, too. This reflects itself on the amount of air travel.
It is common knowledge—I recently saw it myself on the other side of the Atlantic—that there has been an oversupply of capacity, particularly in the large air buses and the 747, and, as a


result, the main airlines in the United States are suffering from surplus capacity. But I believe that this is a temporary phenomenon, and that looking into the future, as we must in considering the affairs of our two great Corporations, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., we can look forward to a gradual increase in the gross domestic product and the traffic which that is bound to generate in the longer term.
I welcome the Bill, and I welcome the creation of the second force. On my recent trip I saw the effect of competition in the United States and how it sharpens the edge of the service given. I am sure that a second force, which takes only 2½ or 3 per cent. of traffic—£6 million worth, a very small bite out of the total traffic for which the Corporations cater—can do nothing but good.
I deplore that B.O.A.C.'s share of the North Atlantic traffic has fallen in the past few years. I hope that the entry of a second British force into the field will help to redress the balance, so that Britain can go on increasing her share not only of the profitable Atlantic traffic but of traffic elsewhere in the world, too. The competition offered by a second British operator is bound to have that desirable effect.
I do not wish to conclude without saying a word about Sir Charles Hardie. A word of congratulation is due to him. I congratulate Mr. Keith Granville on his appointment, and I am sure that we are in for a period of continued growth, but I feel, at the same time, that Sir Charles Hardie, who has steered the air corporations into a period of profit after a period of unprofitability, deserves the congratulation of the House.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I wish to say a few words, with the Bill as my excuse. As we all know, not much can be said about the Bill itself. It is merely a point at which we are pausing in a fairly long chain of development. During that period of development, I have, as it were, grown up in the House, for it dates almost from the time when I became a Member of Parliament. I travelled initially down here, with four of my colleagues, in a DH-Rapide at 95 m.p.h. That was in 1947, and the Rapides which carried us successfully then, without much interrupt-

tion, continued to do so for two or three years. But we realised that we could not creep from Glasgow to London; we had to fly—and the days of crawling passed and the days of faster travel came in.
The capital represented by Parliament and the nation was put behind the private enterprise which was operating and promoting aircraft like the Rapide, because that particular enterprise did not have money in sufficient quantity to back the type of development which was becoming an obvious need. So we had the intervention of the Government and the creation of a new type of aircraft which could fly at 150 m.p.h. and speeds a little beyond that. But State aid for that step was essential. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides will not dissent from this.
Development has not ceased. Having travelled at speeds less than sound, we now want to travel, and are beginning to travel, at speeds greater than sound. More money is required, and at this stage the State must play a greater rôle.
The type of aircraft presented to us now, for example, the 747, creates problems for the men who will be employed on it, problems of remuneration, problems of more fascinating travel, so to speak, and problems of far greater scope than are presented by aircraft like the 707. But the development goes on, and will continue to go on. It has led to a branching off. While B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. are beginning to come together to form a unit, we are creating at the same time another force which, allegedly, will be a constant prod to keep the new combination which is shaping itself continually in action But I venture to suggest that this set-up will not last too long. In a little while, the new group will come in. For my part, I welcome Caledonian because I have known them since they started. I think that I can call Adam Thomson a friend, not because he is a Scotsman but because I have known him since he started on his pioneering career. He will be an adornment to this service, and I am certain that in due course the group working with him will be part and parcel of the State combine represented by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. This has been happening under our noses all through the period during which some of us have been flying to and from Glasgow.
I regret the disastrous deadlock over the 747. It is a pity that so much capital should be lying idle with seemingly no feasible solution. I hope that perhaps some of us who will be at a certain function tonight may be able to say a word or two about what we have been discussing this evening.
The other development which I also particularly welcome is Concorde. I had the privilege of making the first speech in the House in support of Concorde in 1964. Looking back, and re-reading the debate, I agree that our knowledge of Concorde then was rudimentary, but the ideas of those who supported the continuing investment in Concorde and pursuing its development were correct. They have been proved so by the success which has already followed the supersonic flight. We hear a great deal about noise, as if noise were unusual in the age in which we live; but I am certain that Concorde, the summit of aviation progress in the world, will go on to be a tremendous success.
If this little debate in any way, by a kindly thought in support of the continued development of Concorde, plays a part in helping on that progress which I believe is inherent in the idea of Concorde, it will have been worth while.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: I find many paradoxes in this short debate, having listened to the speech of the Minister and other hon. Members. The Bill seeks to increase B.O.A.C.'s borrowing powers with a view to strengthening its fleet, making it much more viable, improving its service to its customers, and becoming an outstanding success as a national airline.
Several theories have been advanced, and I could not help but reflect on that put forward by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), who said that B.O.A.C.'s trade on the North Atlantic route had dropped, but that the introduction of the second force would help to improve the situation. I do not know how he reaches his conclusion, because, if the trade has dropped and B.O.A.C. and the new second force may now fight over it, we could well lose more trade as a result of such wasteful competition or duplication of services in that part of the world.
I am trying to discover just what we are discussing, what theories are being put forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) talks about the Concorde. Nobody wants to stand in the way of technical revolutions or flying revolutions, but we are duty-bound to have regard to the effect of such machines on the lives of the people below. Instruments have been installed in buildings on the West Coast of Scotland to assess the physical effect of sonic booms from such an aeroplane flying at 1,000 m.p.h. and the effect on human life of its terrifying noise and the frightening implications for the human system. We must study this and have regard to it when spending public money to purchase such machines.

Mr. Rankin: When flying over land neither Concorde nor any other supersonic plane will fly at such supersonic speeds.

Mr. Dempsey: I appreciate that, but it has been widely reported that Concorde is flying along the West Coast of Scotland, and certain buildings from Oban to the South-West have been monitored because the flight path is very close to the mainland there. By all means, let us encourage improvements in our flying techniques, but we must never forget our responsibility to protect people and property below.
The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) knows something about flying, I understand. I am sure that he will agree that the faster a plane flies the less chance the pilot has of seeing something in front of him, and so the danger is greater, even in flight lanes. In a radio discussion between a pilot and an official of a British air Corporation I heard the pilot make that very point, which seems to be completely overlooked, that in spite of all our flight paths and lanes and our traffic facilities there is always that danger. It is not my argument. I know nothing about flying planes; I just sit in them. But I certainly listen to a pilot when he says something like that. The hon. Gentleman might laugh, but the pilot made it clear that flying at 500 or 600 m.p.h. he has a better chance of seeing something than at 1,000 m.p.h. That is logic. It is a fair comment.
There is a great danger that we are spending public money in going for aircraft that are too big and too fast. In


the case of the 747, for instance, it is well known, especially to those responsible for managing our air Corporations, that there must be a minimum passenger load to ensure that a flight is economically viable, no matter where it is going. The larger the plane, the larger the minimum passenger load to ensure that its operation is economic and that greater burdens are not imposed on the taxpayers.
I should like the Minister to assure us that all these aspects have been examined, and that he is satisfied, as are his Corporation chiefs, that such large planes represent economically sound investment for the British taxpayer's money.
I condemn wasteful competition between B.O.A.C. and the new second force, Caledonian-B.U.A. But I also condemn wasteful competition between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. Every step should be taken to see that we do not have two national Corporations serving the same airport, as happens in Rome, for example. Steps should be taken to avoid any wasteful competition which might arise where, for example, flights are duplicated. If we are to give a Second Reading to a Bill which provides capital for a British national air Corporation to operate, we are within our rights in asking those responsible to ensure that such wasteful competition does not exist.
That does not mean to imply that I am convinced by or wedded to an amalgamation between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I believe that they serve two different functions, one short haul and the other long haul. The nature of the travelling and of the flight is different in each. If I join a flight from Glasgow to London, I can get my ticket in a couple of minutes but if I want to go to another part of the world it takes a lot longer to get my ticket and more staff and accommodation are needed. The whole nature of the operation, even administratively, is different in long-haul operations from short-haul operations.
There is a growing belief that, if amalgamation takes place, nothing is more certain than that the short haul will be sacrificed for the long haul, since the long-haul routes will obviously be more profitable. If the right hon. Gentleman is contemplating amalgamation, he should give serious consideration to the implica-

tions of such a step. I am sure that, at the end of the day, we will all decide on what we feel is in the best interests of our national corporations and of the nation as a whole.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Noble: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will answer the debate. The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) accused me, for the second time in a week, of having made a short speech. This is the first time in my recollection in this House that anyone has criticised a Front Bencher for making a short speech. If it is a criticism, then I can only reply that I intend to go on earning it wherever possible. He asked me to reply to several points and I will do my best to do so, but I have discovered that if one writes notes on a piece of paper and sits on it, it disappears behind one on this Bench and one cannot get it out.
First, I deal with the question of the proposed Airways Board. In my speech last week proposing the setting up of the Board—the legislation will come before the House this Session—I tried to make it clear that we would leave it to the Board to decide whether or not a merger of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. was right and sensible, because I do not feel that this is something which the Government should decide from the outside. I believe that the new Board should look at the matter from the inside. If it comes to the conclusion that there should be a merger, as I have said, any decision of that kind will have to come to Parliament before it takes place, and that is the right course.

Mr. Dempsey: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that it will come to Parliament before it is implemented so that Parliament itself decides? Or does he mean that, when both Corporations have arrived at a decision, no matter what we say they will have the right to implement it?

Mr. Noble: I meant exactly what I said—that if the Airways Board decides that it would make sense for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to merge, it will be for Parliament to decide whether that is to be done.
The figures in the Bill will be affected, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) said, by the


setting up of the Airways Board, but I thought it right to produce the Bill in this form because the Board is not yet in existence and these are the best estimates we can make of what B.O.A.C. is likely to need over the next five years. Once the Airways Board becomes operational and looks at the whole problem, there may be considerable changes. The Bill is based simply on what we think B.O.A.C. is likely to need over the next five years.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to explain or justify a statement I made in August about the growth of B.O.A.C. traffic at 14 or 15 per cent. He asked whether I still think that to be about the right figure. It is very difficult to give an absolutely clear answer on this but B.O.A.C.'s estimates see an annual revenue growth in money terms of 18 per cent. over the next five years compared with 12 per cent. over the last five years. Of course, this being a cyclical industry, one gets the odd year where growth may drop, but the current estimates are of an 18 per cent. growth, so the 2½ to 3 per cent. transfer of revenue is only a very small part of what B.O.A.C. itself is estimating as its growth rate.
A number of problems about the Boeing 747 were raised by the right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who takes so much interest in these debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) and others. Two problems in particular were mentioned. First, what is the cost to B.O.A.C. of having these three large expensive modern aircraft sitting on the tarmac? The original estimate was about £25,000 a day. Now, B.O.A.C. says that up to 31st October it estimates that it has lost about £18,000 a day, and during the ensuing winter months the estimated loss will be less.
The reason for this change in estimates, if one can call it that, is simply that B.O.A.C. thought this situation might last only for a short time and therefore put in the whole cost of what might have happened. But as traffic has ceased to grow as fast as it was growing over the North Atlantic, B.O.A.C. has been able over the months to make special arrangements, and during the winter the traffic is not so great in any case.
I do not want in any way to be provocative. I want the best and quickest solution we can get to this problem of flying the Boeing 747. Everyone in this House hopes very much that B.O.A.C. and the pilots will get together and find a satisfactory solution. One knows the difficulties and the problems. These are highly skilled and highly responsible people and we hope very much that the 747 training will start soon and we shall be able to get them into the air and cut out this daily loss, at whatever figure it may then be.
I say to the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that he was being a little unrealistic, and I do not think he or the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) really want to go back to the Rapides.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankin rose—

Mr. Noble: I said I would be brief.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie asked me to say why it was that B.O.A.C. wanted these new modern aircraft. The answer is quite simply that it is one of the largest and most successful airlines in the world, and if it is to maintain that position, as we want it to, its fleets must include the same sort of top-class modern aircraft as the fleets of its rivals.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankin rose—

Mr. Noble: I do not want to give way.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, then. The right hon. Gentleman has attributed to me words which I never used. He said that he hoped I did not want to go back to the DH-Rapide. He was linking me with my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), whom I love but not in aviation matters. That was the right hon. Gentleman's excuse.

Mr. Noble: I knew that the hon. Gentleman had not heard what I said. That is why I was trying to stop him interrupting. What I said was that I was sure the hon. Member for Govan would not want to go back to Rapides.

Mr. Dempsey: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the other aspects of


the question? Is he satisfied that the minimum economic load required for the 747 will be justified in making it an economic proposition?

Mr. Noble: Clearly it is impossible to make money out of 50 people in a Jumbo jet. I know that, B.O.A.C. knows it, Mr. Keith Granville knows it, and everybody knows it. I hope we can now leave that particular bird.
May I move quickly on to the problem of the Concorde, about which the right hon. Member for Barnsley asked me to say a word. At this stage obviously I cannot make a clear estimate of what B.O.A.C.'s thinking will be in the next few months about the possible viability of the Concorde, because B.O.A.C. does not yet know. Mr. Keith Granville spoke on the radio on the night of his appointment and I heard him say that B.O.A.C. is keen to go supersonic. We can only hope that the Concorde will meet the commitments required of it by B.O.A.C. so that the operation will be on a viable basis. A great many contributors to this debate mentioned this point. Everybody interested in the remarkable technical achievement of the Concorde hopes at this stage that the remainder of its tests will come out satisfactorily so that it can be shown to be an economic aircraft in use by airlines all over the world. Only in this way can we hope to get back some of the money that has been invested in the aircraft.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking mentioned the question of no more staff. The Bill to give B.O.A.C. more borrowing powers does not itself suggest that there are likely to be any greater manpower needs. It is the exercise of the powers, not the Bill itself, that may call for more manpower.
I hope that I have covered all the points which were raised, points which were of interest and of importance. I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) for his very kind and knowledgeable tribute to Mr. Granville, because the hon. Member worked with him for a very long time and his good wishes for his success will be appreciated. He has been a very professional manager of B.O.A.C.
I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, and I wish B.O.A.C. in particular a very successful period of operation. I trust that its borrowing powers, if needed, may be well spent.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AIR CORPORATIONS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to raise the limits imposed by section 16(1) of the Air Corporations Act, 1967, on borrowings by and investment in the British Overseas Airways Corporation, it is expedient to authorise any increases in the sums payable under the said Act of 1967 out of or into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament, being increases attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session raising the limits aforesaid from a maximum of £120 million to a maximum not exceeding £380 million.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Orders of the Day — TEACHING COUNCIL (SCOTLAND) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I rise very briefly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but we are operating under a Standing Order which denies debate on this item. Therefore, I must put the Question.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH STANDARD TIME

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move,
That the British Standard Time Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.
I should like to start by explaining the effect of this Motion. First may I make it clear that, although I am moving the Motion from the Government Front Bench, the Government are not taking a position in this matter. We feel that it is right that it should be decided by a free vote of the House, but the only way in which it could be brought before the House was by such a Motion of this kind.
I should like to make clear the legal position. Either we pass this Motion and, if it is also passed in another place, British Standard Time will be made permanent or, if it is rejected, there will be a reversion to Greenwich Mean Time on 31st October, 1971. The normal period of summer time in 1972 and the subsequent years would be from the day following the third Saturday in March until the day following the fourth Saturday in October, which is about seven months. But there will be power for the Government to vary this period by Order in Council. Clearly, if there was evidence of substantial public desire for variation of the period, the Government would bring forward the necessary Order. The purpose of the debate today is to decide whether B.S.T. should be made permanent or whether we should revert to the previous system.
My task is not to persuade the House to vote one way or the other, but briefly to put before the House the issues that we are considering. As the House is aware, we published a White Paper, "Review of British Standard Time", in October, based on work which had been commissioned by my predecessor, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). In this White Paper we have tried to set out as objectively as possible the factors involved in this decision.
I should like briefly to run through them. First, there are the arguments in favour of making B.S.T. permanent. The first point relates to the social survey carried out by the Government, and the

public opinion poll—and we all have our views about the accuracy of these polls—was very carefully conducted and was based on personal interviews. It involved some 7,000 people, which is a large sample as compared with other public opinion poll activities. Therefore, it is right for the House to give considerable attention to what the social survey indicated.
It showed that in the mid-winter period 50 per cent. of the population favoured the British Standard Time, 41 per cent. wanted to go back to Greenwich Mean Time, and 9 per cent. were undecided—which by public opinion poll standards is rather a small proportion of "undecideds". In the spring period another check was taken and this showed that the percentage of the public in favour of B.S.T. rose to 51 per cent., with only 39 per cent. against, and 10 per cent. undecided. This was the social survey finding and, although it is in no sense decisive, it is an important piece of evidence. As I have said, it was commissioned by my predecessor in office and was carried out with care and conscientiousness.

Mr. James Dempsey: Over which area?

Mr. Maudling: Over the whole country. I will come to Scotland in due course.
The second point which is often raised is in regard to schools. It is fair to say that the difficulties created for the schools by B.S.T. broadly speaking have been overcome and there are advantages in children being able to go home during a longer period of daylight.
Thirdly, road casualties. Here again the figures, like most statistics, are open to argument; but it is fair to say that the crude figures show a certain saving of casualties over the period. I accept straight away that these figures must be accepted and treated with a good deal of reserve.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: This might be the deciding factor for myself and many hon. Members. Has the right hon. Gentleman got any more up-to-date figures about casualties in the evenings and in the mornings?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot add any new information to that which is contained in


the White Paper. We must treat these figures with considerable reserve. We have put before the House the best figures which we can obtain, because that is our duty.

Mr. James Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking into account the Road Research Laboratory's statistics which appeared in the Library today? My feeling is that those figures are different from those in the survey. Is there anything more up to date available?

Mr. Maudling: I have not seen those figures, but I have not been told that anything produced by the Road Research Laboratory casts doubt on what is in the White Paper. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to mention that in the course of his speech if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
On the various special or particular interests in favour of retaining British Standard Time, it seems that commercial people feel that there is considerable advantage in having a time system in this country which coincides with that of Western Europe. Many people who have done business in Western Europe recognise that here is an important and clear factor; namely, that if we have the same time situation as in Western Europe throughout the year rather than having it broken, as under the old system, it is most helpful to the conduct of business and commerce.
The tourist and travel organisations have indicated that they find British Standard Time a good thing from their point of view.
The electricity people say that there will be a saving, which they quantify with some exactitude, of £100 million in capital expenditure and electric power generation under a system of continued British Standard Time.
The sporting people, by and large, favour the retention of British Standard Time. They believe that the lighter afternoons in winter have led more people to participate in outdoor sports.
Industry is divided, but, on the whole, as the White Paper shows, of the people consulted—employers and unions—60 per cent. had no strong views—this is rather interesting—35 per cent. were in favour of retaining the new system, and 5 per cent. were against it.
Those are the main points which the Government have been able to gather together from their survey of public opinion and discussion with the interests concerned in favour of retaining British Standard Time.
I now turn to the arguments against British Standard Time. Here Scotland particularly comes into the picture.

Mr. J. T. Price: What about the North of England?

Mr. Maudling: I believe that to get to Scotland one passes through the North of England.
The survey shows that, despite the overall figures to which I referred earlier, in Scotland about 61 per cent. of people favoured reversion to Greenwich Mean Time in winter and only 34 per cent. wanted to stay with British Standard Time. This is an extremely important factor.
In making a decision today on the basis of a free vote, I think that we should bear in mind what I saw in a leading article in the Daily Telegraph recently which seemed very sensible. It it not entirely easy for a democratic assembly to decide between a large minority which feels strongly and a majority which does not. This may be the situation here. None of us can be certain. But it is clear that those who are against British Standard Time feel more strongly about it than those who are in favour. What that means to the philosophy of our democratic process I leave to other philosophers than myself.
Those who are opposed to British Standard Time and want to revert to the old system are led by the farming community, whose views on this matter are well known to the House, so I need not dwell on them.
Similar views are held by the construction industry in which a substantial majorit of people concerned obviously are against British Standard Time and wish to see a reverision to the old system.
A number of other people on outdoor work—for example, postmen and road maintenance men—also feel that the system of the long, dark mornings is bad from their point of view, and they are opposed to its continuation.
When local authorities were canvassed about their views, it was found that 64


per cent. held no strong views—possibly not unusual—28 per cent. were in favour of reversion to the old system and only 8 per cent. were in favour of British Standard Time.

Mr. Ronald Bell: When my right hon. Friend says that 64 per cent. held no strong views, does he not mean that 64 per cent. did not answer that question in the questionnaire and that the authors of the review decided that they could not have held any strong views?

Mr. Maudling: I think it is a fair presumption that they had no strong views; otherwise they would have expressed them. However, I cannot guarantee that.
There is the further point about danger to children which is very much in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is difficult to produce any convincing figures one way or the other. There has been a surprising and sad increase in the number of child casualties between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. which is not wholly explained and rather bedevils the figures on this point. I honestly should not like to try to advise the House one way or the other. I do not think that the figures could prove that the increase in casualties in the morning is not more than balanced by the decrease in casualties in the afternoon. The figures are not clear enough to base a decision upon. I think that we should assume one way or the other that there is not a large margin either way.
There has been a suggestion that offences against children have increased as a result of British Standard Time. It seems clear that this is not so. There is no evidence that that has come about.
I have outlined the issues in this matter. I do not think that we should go upon detailed statistics of road casualties to children, which really cannot be argued in any detail because they are not adequate to base firm opinions upon. I do not think that we should be influenced too much by public opinion polls or even by the social survey, which I believe is a good one, carried out by the Government. This is pre-eminently a matter on which individual Members should make up their minds about what is right in the interests of the nation.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick) rose—

Mr. Maudling: That is why I am putting this matter before the House. I am not taking a stand one way or the other. I am inviting the House to judge.

Mr. Kaufman: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? May I take it that, in the event of the House rejecting the Order, it will be necessary for the Government to come forward with a proposal for some new period?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman was not present when I began my speech. I explained that the automatic effect of rejection of the Order is a return to the previous system.

Mr. David James: On a point of order. I apologise for having been five seconds late in arriving. May I ask whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are proposing to call the Amendment standing in my name, at the end to add:
'save that, at the end of paragraph (2) thereof there shall be added the following: "except for the period beginning with the second Sunday of November and ending with the third Saturday in February"'.
or that standing in the names of several of my hon. Friends, at the end to add:
'only when the draft has been amended so as to provide that Greenwich mean time shall extend from 14th November, 1971 to 20th February, 1972 and such other equivalent dates in future years'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): First, the Amendments to the Motion are out of order.
Secondly, and perhaps of maximum interest to the House, more than 30 hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate have given in their names. These include six maiden speakers. I shall be able to call only four maiden speakers. It would be at least for the enjoyment of the speakers concerned if I were to say that the following maiden speakers will be called: they are the hon. Members for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), Preston, North (Miss Holt), and Ipswich (Mr. Money).
I need hardly remind the House that, in view of what has already been said brief speeches would be welcome.

Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order. On the question of some 30 names having been submitted, including four maiden speakers, is the House to understand that unless an hon. Member has submitted his name indicating that he wishes to speak in the debate his prospects of being called in the debate are virtually nil?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That would be an unlikely assumption. Those hon. Members who catch my eye have an equal chance; but it is an indication of the general and widespread interest in the debate.

Mr. Lawson: Further to that point of order. May I take it that that is merely an invitation, and that it will have no effect on those hon. Members who are called to speak? I think that this is damaging to the debating practices of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, and I think that I have made plain what the issue is.

Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order. I do not want to delay the debate, but may I submit that, as this is private Members' business, and not Government business, there ought not to be a selective list?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think I must make plain that selection rests with Mr. Speaker. The names which have been mentioned are those of hon. Members who have indicated their interest in the subject, which shows the extent of the interest in it in the House. No doubt many hon. Members will seek to catch the eye of the Chair during the debate, and I very much hope that they will give themselves and the Chair an equal chance of being called and of calling them.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: We all applaud the Home Secretary for his usual sense of fair play. The right hon. Gentleman has cautioned us against the careless use of the statistics in the Blue Book, which he calls a White Paper. The right hon. Gentleman was lucid, and I hope that I may be as clean-cut as he was in putting my point of view.
I declare a lack of interest in my constituency in this matter. I have received

no correspondence on this issue. I have heard people saying that manual workers in the building industry and postmen who have to make morning deliveries of mail suffer because of British Standard Time. As the House knows, Hull has many dockers, and they and the fishermen in that area get to the docks at about half-past seven in the morning, but I have not received any letters from them complaining about the present situation, and, therefore, the view that I express today is my own opinion. I am no delegate of any constituency interest.
I am incorrect in saying that I have received no correspondence on this subject. I have received one letter from a geography teacher, but she does not live in my constituency. Her point is that, being a geographer like herself, I should, for the sake of astronomic accuracy, vote against having a time system which is not based on G.M.T. or on any degrees of longitude. I should oppose having to go into what is sometimes called a Central European zone but is actually a Western European zone.
Living, as we do, on an island off the west coast of Europe, we are intimately concerned with this issue of common time. I am no Euro fanatic, I am no Common Market fanatic, but I think that there is an argument for going in with the mainland, off which we are an island, when it comes to settling time zones. I have here a book entitled "In The Dark" by a distinguished former Member of the House, Sir Alan Herbert, in which he talks about
the shameless sucking up to the Common Market".
I do not think that that is the case at all.
It is suggested that this may even be a conspiracy by the wicked people of the cities and the south who wish to steal the sunshine and deprive those in the north of it. B.S.T. does not make the slightest difference to the length of the day. What we are discussing is an hour, on or off, in the morning, and on or off at teatime. Not even Alan Herbert can contest the physical facts of life. Because of our geographical position and the latitude at which we are situated, we have short winter days.
The Minister has given us facts which need not be repeated. He has hinted that it is impossible to quantify many of the advantages or disadvantages of this


system. This must be a qualitative judgment. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that. This is a matter of personal opinion, and in this context I speak as an individual and not as a constituency Member.
Although I do not live north of the Tweed, I used to go to school in Northumberland on dark mornings. Many hon. Gentlemen opposite say that we have to stand on our own two feet in the economic context. Is it because of their constituency interests that they cannot follow that philosophy now, but have to think of others? If I can stand on my own two feet, I am sure that many others can, too. I accept British Standard Time, and I call in aid this White Paper, Cmnd. 4512.
I sympathise with people north of the Tweed, but I believe that the balance of opinion on the facts would tip the beam over on one side. On speaking to some of my constituents I find that they value the extra hour of daylight between half-past four and half-past five. Last night I saw a television programme about Stornoway. The hon. Member who represents that area must be present this evening. During the programme something extremely relevant to this issue was said by a distinguished inhabitant of Lewis. He is a qualified engineer, and he said something which I have had said to me by some of my constituents, by mothers of children who go to school in the morning when it is dark and return in the afternoon when it is still light.
During the television interview he said that people in the area were getting used to this system, and that even in the far north, where they might hope to have a midnight sun at some time, they can, like the people south of Caledonia, also stand on their own two feet.
I do not think that the present situation is impossible, as some people suggest it is. I find that old-age pensioners and housewives value the extra hour of daylight. The Blue Book refers to the effects on industrial workers, agricultural workers, teachers, women's organisations, sports organisations, and so on. On balance, standard time is not as unpopular as some of its more violent, or more vocal, opponents say it is.
In 1968 I listened to David Ennals, the former Member for Dover, whom we all miss tonight, talking about this issue. He said that there was a substantial shift of opinion on the matter. The White Paper says that this substantial shift of opinion has continued since then. Reference has been made to a common time zone with the people on the mainland. I think that this is a good idea, even if we do not go into the Common Market. It is important that our business people can pick up a phone and speak to someone on the Continnt, knowing that there is a common time for them, and that they are on the same wavelength. I am told that there has been a gain in business contact hours of about 20 per cent. because of having a common clock.
In my opinion we should consider not only economic matters. The Minister mentioned leisure. No sportsman in the Chamber can deny that it is a good thing to have an extra hour of light in the evening, be it for playing soccer or golf, having an extra hour in a car or outside it, or for a co-ed or single-sex exercise. No one can deny that in that situation we all value the extra hour of light in the evening. As the Minister said, the statistics bear this out.
If one talks to one's constituents, particularly to women, they express the same view as other have expressed about accidents. They talk about their youngsters having to go to school in the morning when it is dark and returning at teatime when it is much lighter than it was under the previous system. We have the statistics of casualties. In England and Wales there was a betterment of 3 per cent. In Scotland—and I hope that this will be of some significance to my colleagues north of the Tweed—there was a betterment of 8·6 per cent. These figures are important to the mothers of young children who go to school. In the whole of the United Kingdom there was just under 4 per cent. betterment. This represents a net gain in human happiness, which should be borne in mind.
One lady to whom I talked about this said that she felt miserable getting up in the morning when it was dark, but felt much happier to have her daughter coming home from school in daylight at ten minutes to four. As one who was born in the north and who has a northern


constituency, I find some of the arguments insubstantial in the light of my own pattern of behaviour. Even in Caledonia, which is so stern and wild, the sun does not set until 4.45 p.m. B.S.T. whereas in the winter solstice it will set at nearer 4 o'clock G.M.T., which is much worse for people living north of the Tweed. British Standard Time is a boon to housewives, sportsmen and elderly people who do not want to get up in the mornings.
I hope that no one will try to set the town against the country. There is a feeling that urban people gain by British Standard Time whereas country people dislike it. We must remember that we are now in 1970 and not at the end of the First World War or the Second World War. Enormous changes have taken place in the pattern of human settlements in the United Kingdom and in the pattern of human behaviour. People tend now to be urbanised and to have different attitudes. Our workers have much more leisure and prefer to have more hours of daylight at the end of the day.
Although it may be unusual for me to do so, I come down in favour of what perhaps the Government desire, and I support the Order.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Gray: It is usual at the commencement of a maiden speech to make reference to one's predecessor, and this is frequently done in happy mood. However, the death of Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie so recently has introduced a sad note into what would otherwise have been for me a pleasing duty.
Alasdair Mackenzie represented Ross and Cromarty from October, 1964, until June of this year, and during his term as a Member of Parliament he made many friends in the House. His quiet and friendly approach, coupled with his obvious sincerity, made him both liked and respected. In the constituency of which he was so rightly proud his sudden death was mourned by many friends, and the large and representative gathering which attended his funeral made a fitting tribute to a Highlander who had given much of his life to the service of others.
For the benefit of hon. Members who may not have visited the area, I will tell them that the constituency of Ross and

Cromarty stretches from east to west, from the North Sea to the Atlantic, and from its boundary in the north with Caithness and Sutherland approximately at Ardgay to the point at which it meets Inverness near Beauly. It is, geographically, one of the largest constituencies in the British Isles, but has an electorate of only 27,000. Ross and Cromarty includes some of Scotland's most prized beauty spots and attracts thousands of tourists each year, especially to its mild and beautiful western shores. It is unique in offering a relaxed holiday atmosphere, while affording facilities for development in the Easter Ross area unsurpassed in Western Europe. There is a natural deep water berth at Invergordon, where flat land at sea level is available for development, and much land is available for possible reclamation. The £37 million aluminium smelter is, I am confident, only the start of a Highland revival.
I hope that over the years many hon. and right hon. Members will visit my constituency. I assure them of a warm welcome. None would be more welcome at this moment than my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Such a visit would confirm to them, if confirmation is necessary, the vast potential of the area and the desirability of encouraging industry to move into the region. I would, however, suggest that, should my right hon. Friends plan a visit in the near future, they do not embark on any land inspection before 10 a.m. since, because of the adverse effect of British Standard Time, they would require the aid of artificial light until almost that hour.
During the first winter in which this unfortunate experiment was imposed, I spent a night in a village on the west coast of my constituency. At 9.40 a.m. next morning it was necessary to use headlights while motoring south. B.S.T. is proving a completely unjustifiable imposition on all persons who have occasion to be out of doors for the purpose of early work or travel.
I have had a vast amount of correspondence on the subject and, with the exception of one solitary letter, it has been entirely against B.S.T. My correspondents represent a wide cross-section of my constituents. Unions and


employers' associations alike have protested, and their views are fairly represented by the General Secretary of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, who wrote to me:
Our union is overwhelmingly opposed to the continuation of B.S.T.
The difficulties which have been created are immense. They include the care of animals; farm vehicles using unlit country roads, frequently in bad weather conditions; getting stock to market, with the impossibility of loading before daylight and the subsequent disorganisation of transport; the intense cold before sunrise; the hopeless situation on building sites even where the site is lit—and many are not. Men face dangers because of shadows and icy conditions, and many building operations which are relatively easy in daylight become impossible in artificial light. Postmen, Post Office engineers, municipal workers and delivery men all suffer a marked decline in their working conditions. B.S.T. causes hazards for children on their way to school, and for the elderly. Housewives who go early to shop or to work suffer difficulties.
In addition, an overall depressing effect is experienced by all who have to suffer the dark mornings for a prolonged period in winter. An experiment carried out by the department of pharmacy at the University of Nottingham in May, 1960, is described in detail in the "Journal of Endocrinology", 1960. vol. 21, page 213. Volunteers were blindfolded before sleep and for three hours after they awoke. The scientific results proved unquestionably that the reactions of those people were impaired not only during the hours immediately after the blindfold was removed but for the remainder of the day.
Apart from the physical and mental suffering which this abominable system imposes, there is a frightening aspect of cost. The building industry estimates that the annual cost of the system amounts to £30 mutton per year, the Scottish share of which is £8 million per year. The white fish industry—I know that this applies perhaps to the Scottish section of it, but the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) will, no doubt, take note—considers that it has lost an hour's fishing per day in

winter, or nearly a day a week. Many forestry operations have a drop in production of 20 pet cent. or more, and, of course, there is the added danger for foresters of working in woods without adequate light.
The cost to agriculture in Scotland alone is estimated at more than £½ million, plus a whole range of burdens which it is impossible to assess in monetary terms. Furthermore, it should be remembered that the two winters during which the experiment has taken place have been relatively mild and, therefore, the results could have been very much worse had they been severe.
It has been suggested by some that the hour at the other end of the day fully compensates, but this is simply not so. The present state of morning darkness will gradually worsen, returning to today's equivalent at approximately the beginning of February, while the evenings will begin to stretch from about 30th December. Thus, the improvement in the mornings is negligible before February and will adversely affect the worst areas. The dark mornings are with us for a disproportionately long time.
I ask hon. Members whose constituencies are not particularly affected one way or the other by British Standard Time—and we hear a lot in this House about compassion—to consider carefully the hardships experienced by many as a result of this annual four-month penalty. As far back as December, 1967, Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament opposed the move to introduce B.S.T. It will be remembered that the original Bill involved a permanent change, but this was subsequently reduced to a three-year experimental period. All the fears which my hon. Friends—and, indeed, hon. Members opposite also—expressed at that time have, unfortunately, materialised.
Today, however, we have a free vote, and I hope that hon. Members, on both sides, will not hesitate to vote against the continuance of this most unhappy experiment. On a free vote Parliament has not always reflected the wishes of the people, but I hope that tonight this House will vote to end British Standard Time.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: In rising to make my maiden speech, I ask the House for its usual indulgence.


I understand that I shall be in order if I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray). I do it all the more readily since he has touched on several points which I had hoped to cover. My congratulations to the hon. Member are sincere for all that. The hon. Member suffers in his constituency the same disabilities as we do.
If I stray into controversial matters, they will, in a sense, be impartial controversies, since as a Nationalist Member I shall be in controversy with both sides of the House from time to time. For that reason, if I stray I hope that it will be less objectionable to the traditions of the House.
I have the honour to represent the Western Isles. My constituency has several records, many of which we would be better without. For years, if not decades, we have had the highest unemployment figures in Britain, running during the last few months at over 25 per cent. of the employed population. I invite hon. Members to consider what those figures would mean in their constituencies. Yet no Government, whatever their label, who have sat here have ever taken action to deal with the special problem of the Western Isles.
Having said that, it would be churlish of me to pass from it without commending the Labour Government for setting up the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Although we in the West, apart from the fisheries scheme, have not received from the board all that we had expected, the Secretary of State for Scotland has now appointed a Western Islander to the board. That is something for which I thank him and which has been widely welcomed in my constituency. We look forward, therefore, to a better share in the future.
Our emigration figures are appalling Per head of the population, we send the highest number of students in Britain to the universities, and yet only a tiny fraction of them come back to take up employment in their own environment. The cost of living is extremely high. High freight costs prevent new development. The whole system of transport on the West of Scotland needs review, and I have already asked the Secretary of State to set up an investigation to that end.
I would have preferred to deal in a maiden speech with the great problems of

unemployment or high freight costs, transport and communities in my constituency without light, without piped water and without roads, but British Standard Time affects my constituency more than any other and, therefore, I decided to speak on this issue tonight.
On British Standard Time, my constituents are again at the end of the queue. We are not the furthest north—the Orkneys and Shetlands are further north—but, as hon. Members will know, the sun rises in the British Isles in a line roughly south-west to north-east and in the middle of December it is 10.15 in the morning before we begin to see a blink of daylight.
Demands for the abolition of British Standard Time have come from many sources. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty has mentioned some of them. I have received letters from the National Federation of Building Trade Employers, the Scottish National Federation of Building Trade Employers, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, the National Farmers' Union—which, I presume, is "shorthand" for the National Farmers' Union of England—the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, the Union of Post Office Workers, the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers' Association, and so on. The Church of Scotland presbyteries of the three northern counties have come out strongly against the continuance of British Standard Time. Local authorities in Scotland have voted four times as many for a reversal to Greenwich Mean Time as have voted for the retention of British Standard Time.
In Glasgow University experiments have been going on which seem to prove that there is some compromise of physical and mental abilities due to this change in the clock, something on the lines of what occurs when one flies across the Atlantic. This is a serious aspect of the matter.
Public opinion polls would indicate that there is a case for abolishing British Standard Time. I mention public opinion polls with diffidence, as I understand that they do not enjoy quite the status that they had before 18th June.
Central European Time is really what we are discussing. It has little relevance to England and none at all to Scotland. It is pleasant to know that several hon.


Members from English constituencies, some of them in the south, have indicated to me that they intend to vote for the abolition of British Standard Time.
It would be presumptuous of me to issue a warning to the House in a maiden speech, but I invite hon. Members who may be thinking of voting to continue British Standard Time to consider the inference which may be drawn in Scotland if the will of a majority of the Scottish Members is frustrated by a majority from areas affected by British Standard Time in only a very minor way or not at all. The ridiculous imposition of this British Standard Time should now be ended in the name of equity and common sense.

6.20 p.m.

Miss Mary Holt: I ask for the indulgent ear of the House for a maiden speech.
Preston, North is my constituency. The town of Preston has been represented in this House from at least 1295, possibly earlier. Since 1950 the northern part of the town, combined with the Urban District of Forward, has constituted the constituency which I represent.
It is a combined industrial and residential area. As a native Prestonian, I am proud to represent my own town, and it will be my aspiration to try to display to hon. Members a few of the qualities of grit, determination, initiative, enterprise and, not least, good humour which characterises the people of Preston. A few of those qualities have made their aircraft, their engineering, their textiles and some of their other products world-famous.
It must be borne in mind, from a reading of the Review of B.S.T., that it is largely based on sample surveys of the population. The first section describes the result of a social survey. After dividing the country into three zones, a survey was carried out in two stages, the first in December, 1969, and the second in February and early March, 1970. On page 10 the Review states:
The samples provided fully representative views within each of the three main zones and, in all, nearly 7,000 people were interviewed.
Based on those samples, percentages are then given for the three different zones as to the possibility of reversion to the pre-

vious dual time system. I have a grave distrust of sample surveys. Never will I forget the sample surveys with which the nation was regaled by various newspapers before the last General Election, and how they were almost universally proved to be wrong.
As for the survey on B.S.T., during the whole of the time it was being taken I was resident in Preston, yet I have not met a soul who was interviewed in that survey. If one breaks down the survey figure between the three areas, it means that about 2,330 people were interview in the area described as "N and W", which I presume to mean North and West, and which, according to the Review, has a population of about 22 million. This must allow for a grave sampling error.
Figure 4 in the Review purports to give the figure of those in favour of B.S.T. as against those in favour of the old system, but how these figures can be reconciled with chart 3 is inexplicable, since 53 per cent. in December, 1949, and 51 per cent. in February to March, 1970, in the North and West area are stated to be in favour of B.S.T. although it appears from the previous chart that everybody was undecided, apart from those who spoke definitely and those who spoke with the qualification "on the whole". If one adds those two figures together relating to the North and West, they do not add up to either 50 per cent. or 51 per cent.
In terms of percentages, I draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that if one totals up the figures for the North and West in chart 3, they add up not to 100 per cent., as they should, but to 101 per cent., which makes me even more suspicious of the figures.
Preston falls within the Northern zone, where lighting-up time on 21st December would normally be 4 p.m. G.M.T. and 5 p.m. B.S.T. In the mornings, it would be 8.40 for G.M.T. and 9.40 for B.S.T. It is also in one of the wettest parts of the country where theoretical lighting-up time and sunrise seldom correspond with reality through the heavy clouds bringing in the rain formerly so beneficial to the cotton industry.
Preston has many industrial workers who begin work at 7.30 a.m. and many building and construction workers who start at 8 a.m. It is a question not just


of getting up in the dark—nobody minds that—but of going to work in pitch darkness and continuing to work in darkness as well as return home in total obscurity which saps a man's will to work. In a town like Preston, it is not just industrial and outdoor workers who are affected but also office workers and children. Under B.S.T., children going to school at 8.45 a.m. are in total darkness on many mornings while the rain pours down on them. People are not as prepared for darkness in the mornings as they are at night. As the traffic roars by, children on their way to school are put at a totally unjustifiable risk, despite their fluorescent clothing.
I have seen Preston lollipop women escorting children across the road to school in the dark in the early morning having to jump back out of the way of traffic which has roared by.
Admittedly, the Pedestrian Association on Road Safety has quoted a fall of 579 in the number of fatal and serious casualties among all road users in the two years following the introduction of B.S.T., but the association's figures include the results of the breathalyser, and, as has been pointed out, the resultant figures must be viewed with caution. However, the association quotes a net increase of 44 in the number of fatal and serious child casualties. Children are the least able to take care of themselves, and any system of time which helps to protect children will have my support.
Outdoor workers are almost wholly opposed to B.S.T. The President of the Preston Association of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers wrote to me on 7th November asking me to vote against the continuation of B.S.T. I hasten to assure an earlier speaker that I have absolutely no interest in this subject other than my constituency interest. The president of this organisation wrote:
Surveys which have been conducted by the Ministry of Public Building and Works and by the British Federation of Building Trades Employers clearly show that B.S.T. is overwhelmingly opposed by the construction industry as a whole—both employers and operatives—on the grounds that it has been responsible for reducing productivity and for raising costs in the industry by at least £30 million a year.
Dealing with the reasons for the increase in costs, he wrote:
Basically it is because the building industry traditionally starts work at 8 a.m.—or 7.30 a.m. in rural areas—and it is necessary in the darkest

months of the year either for the hours of starting to be changed or for sites to be lit. If the hours are changed—and operatives by and large are not disposed to accept such change readily—serious difficulties arise by virtue of the fact that operatives, lorries delivering materials and plant get caught up in the main rush hour, and delays occur in heavy traffic areas which affect attendance on site in the first hour. If the hours are not changed, either artificial lighting has to be provided at considerable expense to builder and client—or it is impossible for work to be carried on satisfactorily in the first hour because it is too dark.
Even if lighting is provided, there may still be serious problems arising from the fact that scaffolding may be frosty and dangerous. In either case, building firms have generally found that there is a considerable drop in output in the first hour of working in the darkest months. The difficulties, of course, are greatly intensified in the North of England and in Scotland.
Postmen are also against B.S.T. Anybody who has seen a postman trying to deliver letters in the morning in the pouring rain with the aid of a tiny torch will have sympathy with the Preston postman who said to me only last week, "If this B.S.T. goes on, all the postmen will need spectacles."
Outdoor workers represent some of the most important industrial workers in Britain. The building of houses is surely one of the main priorities of any Government. We cannot allow the construction industry to be hampered. Too many homes for too many families depend upon it. Farming is our largest industry and is of incalculable value to our balance of payments.
The needs of industries such as these are vital to our well-being and should take priority over those who prefer B.S.T. for their sporting and leisure activities. Indoor workers and the South can manage with either system. The North and outdoor workers cannot. The nation should accommodate itself to them. I shall vote against the continuation of B.S.T.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: It is a very rare pleasure to congratulate three hon. Members on their maiden speeches but I am sure that the House will want me warmly and enthusiastically to congratulate the three colleagues who have just spoken. They have spoken with brevity, which is always commendable, and with lucid clarity. They have shown a logical approach which has led them to a conclusion which I regard


as inevitable. I hope that on future occasions they will make the same approach and that all four of us will reach the same conclusion, probably to the upset of the Whips. I congratulate them, too, on seizing this opportunity to speak for their constituents: only rarely do we get the chance to speak directly for those who have sent us here. The three hon. Members have taken that chance, and I am sure that all their constituents will appreciate it.
I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to make a speech. I am sure that you will be delighted to hear that, as will other hon. Members. I want only to follow the Continental custom of giving an explanation of vote.
Some time ago I took the hazardous course of inviting my constituents to guide me on this matter. I regret to say that I got an infinitesimal response. However, statisticians would tell me that Sunderland is apparently unanimously against the continuance of British Standard Time. I do not have farmers in my constituency, but I have found, as have other hon. Members, that the constructional and building trades are against B.S.T., as are the Post Office workers. In particular, the mothers of small children going to school are against it.
I also discovered, and this was the result not of my scientific survey but of a casual conversation with him, that one of our leading industrialists who has interests both on the Continent and in America believed that the argument about the present system affecting industrialists' relationships with those either on the Continent or in America was nonsense. He said that any firm that would be affected by such a consideration should not be in business. I believe that to be right.

Mr. Michael McGuire: My right hon. Friend said that mothers of school children have told him that British Standard Time is a disadvantage. My own observation as a parent is that children have little time in the morning—the time schedule for getting to school is tight—but coming home from school they tend to have more time to linger, so that the extra hour then is bound to be an advantage. Does he agree?

Mr. Wiley: I do not agree at all. I am acting as rapporteur for those who have made representations to me, and that view has been put to me.
My own observations on travelling north lead me to believe that as a result of this present system things become more unpleasant as one proceeds. Having declared my reasons, I intend to oppose the Motion.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Ernle Money: I crave your indulgence and that of the House, Mr. Speaker. As successor to the proud title of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) as possessor of the smallest majority, it is with some trepidation that I now address the House. Nevertheless, I take great comfort from the fact that my hon. Friend has increased his majority by at least 2,000 per cent.
It gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to Sir Dingle Foot, my predecessor as hon. Member for Ipswich. He is an outstanding adornment of my own profession. He contributed much to the life of the borough, and he is a man of the greatest personal and moral courage.
Both Cobbett and Defoe found the Borough of Ipswich to be neat, thriving and well conducted, and I hope that a visitor to East Anglia would find it so today. One thing that most travellers have discovered about Ipswich is that it is certainly a place where the inhabitants are wont to speak their mind, and to speak it with some vigour. They did so on 18th June, and they have certainly spoken so to me on a variety of subjects since, but on none with greater vigour than on British Standard Time.
My impression from speaking with hon. and right hon. Members on both sides is that there is an overwhelming preponderance in favour of getting rid of the present thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs, but from my own county borough I have had indications of a universal preponderance. Every letter I have had has been in favour of going back to the old and happier state of affairs. It may be that this is because we are a major industrial borough, relying for our prosperity on our docks and industry, and our connection with the farming industry around us.
I respectfully submit that any hon. Member is bound to reiterate the arguments that have gone before, because the voice of the nation has spoken so clearly, but in every case I have had there has been reference to the same things—the loss of productivity, the danger, the disadvantage, the increase in accidents, and the sheer tediousness of the present experiment. Indeed, the only members of the population—apart from golfers, who were, I understand, mentioned earlier—who have felt strongly about keeping the present system are those of the criminal profession who specialise in burglary. I understand that the extra hour comes conveniently for them at one end. However, I am comforted by reflecting that what is bad for burglars may be good for the Bar.
The overwhelming voice of my constituency seems to be echoed by the voice of the nation. Doubt has been thrown, perhaps with some reason, on the opinion polls. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt) was even able to find an opinion poll which did not add up either numerically or by results. But the most recent poll—the Harris poll this morning—showed a figure of 57 per cent. in favour of Greenwich Mean Time, 37 per cent. in favour of British Standard Time, and 6 per cent.—perhaps the traditional 6 per cent.—"Don't knows". I hope that we are pushing at an open door, and I am quite convinced that we have the bulk of the nation pushing behind us.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Peter Doig: I represent a Scottish constituency, but I support the Order. The vote will be between the interests of Scotland and those of the rest of the country. That is quite wrong.
British Summer Time was first introduced for the purpose of allowing more people to enjoy more daylight hours. We can neither reduce nor increase the number of daylight hours, but we can increase the number of people who can take advantage of them and enjoy them. British Summer Time had the serious drawback that it meant changing the clocks twice a year. Whether the reason for the opposition to it was simply normal British conservatism against change

of any kind I do not know, but there was a job to get British Summer Time introduced. It has been in being for about 50 years. I know of nobody who wants to go back to Greenwich Mean Time all the year round. There was initially opposition to the former step, as there is opposition to this step. In the summer far more people can enjoy the extra hour of daylight at night than can enjoy it in the morning.
How many people can enjoy the extra hour of daylight in the afternoon in the winter as against the extra hour in the morning? There is a fairly easy way to check this. How many people do we meet on the roads between eight and nine o'clock in the morning and between four and five or five and six o'clock in the afternoon? There are far more people and vehicles on the roads in the afternoon peak period than in the morning period. That is borne out by the accident rates.
One of the most important considerations is the number of road accidents. Over 1,000 people are killed or seriously injured every day on the roads in this country, and anything we can do to reduce that number should be welcomed. There were objections to the breathalyser when it was introduced. Now everybody accepts it, and nobody would think of scrapping it. A book which has just been published clearly shows that the total of accidents has reduced. It is true that the number has increased in the mornings, but it has reduced in the afternoons. Taking the two periods together, the reduction is 3·8 per cent. over the whole of Britain and, for some reason beyond me, 8·6 per cent. in Scotland. Many people who would otherwise be involved in accidents are avoiding them. As over 1,000 people are killed or injured every day on the roads, many people's lives are being saved and many people are avoiding serious injury by British Standard Time. This is the factor which weighs most with me. How often have we said that no Government should object to spending money on measures which save lives?
Let me turn to the objections to British Standard Time. Initially, the farmers' objection was that the feeding hours for cattle could not be changed. The farmers said that changing the clocks twice a


year was a tremendous nuisance to them. Now that we have obviated that change, the farmers are still complaining. That is not surprising, because no matter what Governments do for farmers they will always complain. Therefore, I do not think we need worry too much about them.
I am sorry, but I forgot to refer earlier to the excellent maiden speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money). Although I disagreed with what he said, the speech was excellently delivered. It was made in a very capable way, and we shall be pleased to hear him speak again in future.
I have no farms in my constiuency, but for some reason unknown to me the National Farmers' Union, the Scottish National Farmers' Union and even the farmers around my constituency continually send me literature. They continually want to take me round their farms. I go because I am an obliging person.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: My hon. Friend is not doing himself justice. He is being much too fair to the farmers. Surely he will agree that one of the reasons for their opposition to British Standard Time is that it was introduced by a Labour Government. There is no more to it in that.

Mr. Doig: That may be so. I have found that the majority of them are anti-Labour.
With my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson), I visited a number of farms in my area on a conducted tour. One farmer had read a speech which I had made some time ago on this subject in the Scottish Grand Committee. He said, "Here is the Member who supports British Standard Time." We had a lengthy argument, at the end of which he said to me, "Give me one good reason for it". I said "Right. It will save you changing the clocks twice a year. It will save you much trouble." He said, "That is the first good reason that I have heard for it".
He then asked me to talk to his cattleman, who is responsible for doing the most awkward part of his work. I discovered that it was not two changes but eight changes a year which were involved. When the clocks were altered, he

changed his animal feeding time four times at 15-minute intervals. I take it that that was the typical situation on most farms. The cattleman was not concerned about whether the system was changed or not, rather to the surprise of his boss, the farmer.
I turn now to the question of the postmen, for whom I have a great deal of sympathy. I object to postmen being bitten by dogs, and I introduced a Bill about it. I used to start work very early in the morning—four o'clock. I saw the postmen wending their way to the post office between five and six o'clock in the morning. They started their deliveries at six o'clock. Invariably, in a large constituency like mine, they finish their deliveries by eight o'clock. Therefore, British Standard Time does not affect them. They are having their breakfast at the relevant time. By the time they go out on their second delivery it is daylight.
Of all the people who have written to me about this matter, the builders have a legitimate grievance. British Standard Time must cost them money—and money is always very precious to Conservatives and businessmen. If British Standard Time results in reducing accidents, as the survey clearly shows, the extra cost to the builders, which is passed on to somebody else anyway, is a small price to pay.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Gentleman seems to be worried about the question of reducing accidents. Has he noticed that in order to arrive at that conclusion the authors of the survey had to add together the results of the two years—the one before the advent of the breathalyser and the one after it—before British Standard Time was introduced. A comparison with the year before the introduction of British Standard Time does not show that there was a reduction in accidents. The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the trap which the impartial statisticians fell into.

Mr. Doig: The report that I have read makes it clear that its authors have gone out of their way to make allowances for such matters as the introduction of the breathalyser and that, even so, a reduction in the number of accidents was still shown.
It is simply explained. In the morning, drivers have only just started their day.


They are still fresh. By the afternoon, they are not so fresh. It is a well known fact that drivers tend to become a little more reckless as they near the end of a journey than they were at the start. I used to have a boss who brought cars up from the South of England. Invariably, he crashed them on the last 20 miles. When a driver gets to the last lap of his journey, he tends to be that much more careless. He is more likely to be careful at the start of his journey.
We have heard several references to the problems of school children. However, I think that the vast majority of children are accompanied to their schools in the mornings, whereas they are less likely to have their parents meet them out of school in the afternoons.
If one attempts to discover the balance of advantages and disadvantages, it boils down to the greater number who benefit by having an extra hour of daylight at either end of the day. For example, the vast majority of non-working housewives rarely go out during the first hour of daylight in the morning under the old system. The same applies to retired people and very young children. However, nearly all these groups go for a walk in the afternoon. Under the old system, they will have to return home fairly early if they want to be sure of getting back safely. It must be remembered, too, that older people are more accident-prone than young children. In a period of twilight or darkness, motorists cannot see old people, but old people can see motorists, but, unfortunately, they have not the agility to get out of the motorists' way. Younger people have. As I say, these people are out in the afternoons far more than in the mornings, and this is probably one reason why the accident figures have been reduced.
For those reasons, I support the Order, and I am convinced that it is well worth supporting.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I oppose the continuation of British Standard Time. There is no doubt in my mind that the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland wish to see this absurd experiment abolished. That is certainly the case in Edinburgh and among members of the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce.
In the last Parliament when I launched two Motions to get rid of the experiment, it was significant that they were both supported by every single Unionist Member, including two members of the then Shadow Cabinet, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). It is not usual for members of a Shadow Cabinet to sign Motions of this sort. They did, and their action showed the strength of their feeling and that of all Unionist Members representing Scottish constituencies.
Like all other right hon. and hon. Members, I have received representations and documents from a great many organisations. They need not have sent them to me because I have been against the rotten experiment from the start, but they did. That from the National Farmers' Union in England and the N.F.U. in Scotland was extremely well argued and convincing. So were the documents and representations that I received from the building trade employers and the civil engineering organisations. There seems to be no doubt that B.S.T. is costing the building trade about £50 million a year, and I am told that it may be as much as £8 million in Scotland. These are sums that we cannot afford.
The document which impressed me most was the one from the Union of Post Office Workers. It says quite definitely that work and efficiency have suffered as a result of B.S.T. With postmen having to deliver in darkness and in all kinds of weather, often in badly lit streets and even worse lit stairways, accidents have increased. The union tells me that for the first two years of the B.S.T. experiment accidents in the months of September to February between 7 and 9 a.m. have more than doubled. I do not know what the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) will think but, according to official figures, the number of accidents to postmen has gone up from 1,104 before B.S.T. to 2,287 last year, during the experiment.
I have received many letters from individuals, mostly in Scotland, though some from England. All except two have been against the experiment.
I do not think that any case has been made out for B.S.T. We are told that


it is better for people to communicate with the Continent. But Italy is on a different time scale. That argument is, clearly, exploded.
I suggest that the whole problem, if it is a problem, is that those who favour B.S.T. are not all that ardent about it and very often are not personally affected. On the other hand, a large body of opinion feels strongly, for economic reasons, because of their children, because of the nature of their outdoor work or on grounds of health. In equity and because these people are so deeply involved, it seems to me that the decision should go in their favour. I hope that the House will agree. Certainly Scotland, Ulster and large parts of the North of England will welcome with relief and gratitude a return to the old system and to G.M.T.
Before I sit down, let me join in the congratulations which have been extended to our maiden speakers. They have spoken shortly, clearly and with great confidence. The House looks forward to hearing them all again.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I hope that the House will forgive me if I intervene at this point to give a personal view. We have now had nine or 10 speeches, and the beginning game is certainly over; we are now well into the middle of it, and, with all deference to hon. Members who may follow me, I am not sure whether there will be many new arguments. I think that we shall hear the old arguments, no doubt represented in more attractive ways.
I, too, want to congratulate our maiden speakers. We have heard from the hon. Members for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), Ipswich (Mr. Money), and Preston, North (Miss Holt), all of whom spoke with real passion and concern on a subject which affects their constituents closely. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said, they do not often get opportunities of this sort.
Perhaps I might utter one cautionary word. In saying that hon. Members on the Opposition benches are to have a free vote, I hope that no one casting a vote tonight, whichever way he casts his, thinks

that he will dispose of the issue or that if the Order is defeated we are likely to return to some Utopian state of bliss from which we were rudely plucked three years ago.
The origin of the matter, if I may remind the House, was that there was great pressure both on the Conservative Government up to 1964 and on the Labour Government after 1964 to alter the system to which there is now such passion to return. The Government of the day, whether the Conservative Government or the Government of which I was a member, were consistently pressed by a growing number of interests which complained that the system for which there is now such enthusiasm was increasingly unpopular, was difficult, was leading to great distortions in industry and considerable unpleasantness for farmers. Generally, I think it fair to say, most of the arguments we have heard this evening were used in respect of the system to which hon. Gentlemen now want to return. I utter that cautionary word because I have had a feeling, hearing the enthusiasm with which some hon. Members have spoken, that they think that they will dispose of the issue. I do not believe that they will.
In my view, what will happen if, as I gather, the Order is defeated overwhelmingly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In view of those loud cheers, let me say that, if there is any hon. Member on the other side who wants to tell, I shall be glad to go into the Lobby with him. Let there be at least one brave man keeping the gate.
If the Order is to be overwhelmingly defeated, as I gather from the voices it is, the next pressures which hon. Members find will be, first, upon the Government to extend the period of summer time and, second, complaints about the double change of clock. That is what will happen.

Mr. Money: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Callaghan: I shall not give way at the moment. I am trying to analyse what the situation is likely to be. The plain truth—no one can escape from this—is that we do not have sufficient hours of light in Britain in the winter, and it is a question of how we dispose of them to the best advantage. There are just


not enough hours of light to go round, and however we play with them, however we change them, whether we make more hours of daylight in the morning or in the evening, we shall not satisfy everyone.
It so happens—I respect this view—that Scotland, so we are told, feels very deeply on this issue. May I say a word about the philosophy of it? The Home Secretary, who kept his head down—to the point where he is now invisible—said that he was not quite sure what the philosophy of things of this sort were. [An HON. MEMBER: "Was."] All right, was. I always concede to the hon. Gentleman on a point of grammar, if on very little else.
I think that the philosophy is this, if I may put it in a sentence. The majority should prevail, but they should take care not to outrage the feelings of the minorities. This is a pure matter of judgment, and, therefore, I feel that those of us who—[Interruption.] Perhaps I ought to put it the other way. Am I not in the minority, and should I not raise my voice? The real point in terms of population is that the comparatively small population in Scotland is very adversely affected, or feels itself to be very adversely affected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not only Scotland."] Not only—but the maps are drawn in a most interesting way. For example, I was not aware, until I saw Fig. 1 in the Command Paper showing sunrise and sunset zones on 21st December, that Plymouth, Cardiff and Hull are in the South-East of England. It will certainly come as news to my constituents.
At any rate, in terms of where the thick line is drawn, South-East England covers a considerable proportion of the population, and the intermediate zone further up covers a large part, too. We are, therefore, talking basically about Scotland, although to some extent—

Mr. Money: No, we are not—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, who has just made his maiden speech, must not persist if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman has now tried to interrupt me twice, and he tried to interrupt the hon. Member who spoke before me. I am delighted to give way to him if he wants to create a precedent.

Mr. Money: I am sorry if I am creating a precedent. The right hon. Gentleman has thrown doubt upon the figures as they apply to the South, but may I remind him of the latest returns given by an opinion poll for which, at least during the election campaign, he was heard to express some enthusiasm? This is the comparison between Scotland and the rest of the country, as revealed by that opinion poll. In Scotland 71 per cent. were against British Standard Time and 17 per cent. were in favour. In the North of England 56 per cent. were against B.S.T. and 32 per cent. were in favour. In the Midlands 57 per cent. were against and 33 per cent. in favour. In the South 54 per cent. were against B.S.T. and 32 per cent. in favour. It does not appear, with respect—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a second speech rather than an intervention.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was coming to those figures. I shall now make my own speech, whether hon. Gentlemen opposite disagree or not. I was saying that, basically, the complaints are coming from Scotland.

Mr. Michael Jopling: No, they are not.

Mr. Callaghan: It may not be the hon. Gentleman's view, but I have the Floor and I intend to say this and stick to it. The majority of complaints are coming from Scotland. If hon. Members who do not like what I am saying catch Mr. Speaker's eye, they will be able to say something different. I am giving my view.
I was saying, in relation to the fact that there is a comparatively small minority of people there, that it is vital, because the large population is elsewhere, that we do not outrage the feelings of a relatively small number of people. On the philosophy of the matter, I ask myself whether we should be doing that.
Great doubt is cast on all these figures in the Social Survey. I congratulate the Home Secretary on the preparation of the statistics. Hon. Members will select the statistics which they like. There is only one statistic in this document which they do like, and it has been cited time after time in the debate. I refer to the statistic in the section on building and


constructional engineering, which says that the increased cost to the construction industry is £30 million a year. Every hon. Gentleman who is opposed to the Order likes that figure. I wish to goodness that hon. Members would read the qualifications in paragraph 125. They might not place quite so much reliance on it then. But it is not my case to cast particular doubt on the figures, save to say that I agree entirely with the Home Secretary that all of them should be treated with considerable caution. If the other figures are to be treated with considerable caution, so should that figure of £30 million with reference to increased costs in the construction industry. I shall not weary the House by reading the qualifications.
It appears from the figures on page 10 of the survey, if one isolates Scotland for this purpose, as though, between the first census in December, 1969, and the second one in February-March, 1970, rather more people thought that we should keep the new system—were not sure, but thought that perhaps we should keep it, and so on—than thought so on the first occasion. Is that not in accordance with the general experience of hon. Members? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is certainly in accordance with my experience that members of the public resisted the change very strongly and that, since it has been made, more have come to accept it or acquiesce in it.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: No.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. I am giving my views, and I intend to continue, whether the hon. Gentleman likes them or not.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Callaghan: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has for some minutes been making noises from a sedentary position. He has a strong constituency interest which he has always represented, but he must make his own speech in his own time.
I was saying that I believe it to be in accordance with the experience of a number of us that the public, having started off by disliking the system, have moved to a neutral or a favourable position. I venture the view that if we were to

change back now there would be a large number of complaints because we were changing once again. I believe that that would be likely. So I do not take the view that we should be outraging the opinion of Scotland.
I imagine that on an issue like this all of us have tried to ascertain what our constituencies feel. Here, I express my mistrust of percentages. If I report the percentage in my constituency who, on my information, are opposed to British Standard Time, I have to tell the House that the figures are 92 per cent. opposed and 8 per cent. in favour. That was made up of 12 letters against and one in favour, out of 70,000 constituents. But it is 92 per cent.
I must say that I mistrust some of these other percentages which are being flung around just as much. I take the view that there is a large measure of indifference about this, but, on the whole, I believe that more people like the longer evenings than hate the dark mornings. This is exactly my view; I hate the dark mornings and I like the light evenings. If one can be subjective about it, I think I would prefer the light evenings to the beastliness of the dark mornings. Everybody has his own feeling, and that happens to be mine. I believe my opinion is shared by what I call the silent majority. I believe the silent majority take just about this middle view.
There are more important issues. There is the question of road accidents. The latest information we have, which the Home Secretary did not have this afternoon although it was put into the Library today, is from the Road Research Laboratory. This information is interesting because it shows not only that there is no increase in accidents but, if the figures are to be believed, that there is an actual saving of life as a result of the change. According to these figures, the number of people who would have been killed or seriously injured has been lessened to the following extent: South-East England, 700; South-West England, 150; Central England, 450; Northern England, 900; Wales about 25; Southern Scotland about 25; Central Scotland, 350; North-East Scotland, 100; Northern Scotland, a small decrease—fewer than 20.
This is the conclusion of the Road Research Laboratory. Everybody will


dissect the figures as he likes, but I think this is a new piece of evidence which should be before the House. If it is right to say that there are 2,700 people walking about who might have been either dead or seriously injured, this is surely a factor which the House should take into account and should offset against the disadvantages which undoubtedly exist.
I come particularly to the three groups which suffer disadvantage, first the farmers and agricultural workers, who have said that it causes disruption in work and that they would prefer to go back to the old system; and, secondly, the Union of Post Office Workers which says that the accident rate of postmen has increased. I quite agree, and so I think will everybody in this House. Any of us who has done any canvassing in an autumn election by torchlight will know exactly what the postmen have to put up with. But I think my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) put the matter into the right perspective when he spoke of the great number of postmen whose rounds are completed before it gets light in the morning and who use torches irrespective of what happens.
Thirdly, there are the construction workers, whose case has been put very effectively in a maiden speech by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray). There are, at a rough estimate, 1½ million of these construction workers. There are 25 million workers in this country. Where does the balance come down? Where is the scale? Is it the 1½ million who are being seriously inconvenienced or the 23,500,000 who either are not inconvenienced or do not mind? We can continue to argue as we have argued this evening, and I accept the point and support the 1½ million.
Everybody is entitled to say how he thinks the balance of advantage will come down. I believe that if we take this figure of road accidents, which is a very important figure, speaking for myself, this would lead me to a different conclusion from that of the majority of the House. I am not particularly impressed by the commercial arguments or the arguments for the sporting interests or for communications with the Continent. In the end, if I had to decide, it would be upon this basis, that on balance the majority of people in this country do not mind, but there is, I believe, a pretty well estab-

lished reduction in road accidents so far as can be shown.
For that reason, therefore, if a Division is called tonight, because I do not believe that we shall solve the problem and the great majority of the House is against me—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Very well, we shall see. But if a Division is called, I would feel that, on the whole, because we shall not dispose of this problem just by voting down this Order, but because I believe it is making a material difference to road safety and because I believe a lot of the complaints about it have been overstated, I shall go into the Lobby in support of the Order.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in the arguments which he has adduced because I am totally and utterly opposed to what he said, both in fact and in the effect that the present system is having upon my constituents and on the greater proportion of the population of Scotland. I think the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will agree that the effects on the people in Scotland are much more marked than the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said. It applies not only to agriculture, to the postmen and so on; it applies even more forcibly to the man in the street.
Let me take one example in my constituency. People with children who go to school and have to travel long distances find that their children, under the previous system, went to school in the dark. But now, they not only go to school in the dark; they have to come back in the dark as well. The whole thing is completely topsy-turvy, and I hope the House will throw out this Order.
I want to make a specific plea on behalf of the inshore fishermen. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), in a most excellent maiden speech—and I join with others in congratulating him as well as the other maiden speakers this evening—has already touched on this point, namely, that the inshore fishermen, because of this timing, lose one shot per day. In other words, if they are making four shots per day in normal times, because they can only work in the light and because the markets do not alter their time of operation—obviously, the


fish have to be got away south to the centres of population—the boats have to get in at the same time.
Here is one industry that is definitely being badly affected. I am told that this applies to most of the inshore fishing industry in the United Kingdom. It certainly adversely affects the inshore fishermen in my constituency and in Scotland as a whole, from the west to the east coast, from north to south.
I have a letter from the Secretary of the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers' Association referring to the port of Ayr. He says:
… in the case of Ayr, the market closes at 7.30 p.m. and an attempt to extend the market hours was refused for various reasons and also because there would be a delay in icing and packing fish and at least an hour's delay in the departure of lorries carrying fish to the markets in the Midlands and South of England.
I have no doubt whatever that the inshore fishing industry will benefit from a return to the former system. I hope very much that the Order will be turned down. I suggest that hon. Members who have any doubts on the subject should remember our brave fishermen who are suffering loss through British Standard Time.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: The words of the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) are typical of the kind of argument presented on this subject. He said that he was totally and utterly opposed to British Standard Time. Those words are significant on a matter about which there is so much admitted indifference and in which many fine points are involved. Yet the hon. Gentleman can talk about being totally and utterly opposed. For anyone to use such words on a matter of this kind suggests to me that he has not done much thinking about it. He is simply allowing his emotions to well up.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that if he, like me, had talked to his constituents, weighed up their opinions, taken account of the letters he received and then had a specific case of damage, he too would be totally and absolutely opposed?

Mr. Lawson: I disagree. We should look into the history of the matter. If we do so we see how marginal the matter

has been in many cases, and how in many others the nation has been compelled willy-nilly to accept greater and greater uniformity. For example, I was surprised to learn that it was not until about 1880 that Greenwich Mean Time was legally established for Great Britain as a whole. We talk as if Greenwich Mean Time were nature-given, but it results only from a line drawn arbitrarily. Many other lines could be accepted. The practice, certainly until well into the middle of the last century, which is not so long ago, was to base an area's time on local clocks or perhaps on the sun. But it was found that Great Britain had to have a uniform or agreed time, and accordingly we had the adoption of Grenwich Mean Time in about 1880. It was not until 1884 that it was adopted internationally.

Mr. John Brewis: As the bulk of the British Isles is to the west of the Greenwich meridian, British Standard Time plus about an hour and a quarter would be the correct local time for us, so it has gone far too far the other way.

Mr. Lawson: I have some of the figures here in the excellent White Paper. There are substantial differences in different parts of the country. I should like to compare London and Glasgow. I will take Glasgow, not Stornoway. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) made a powerful speech, but is apparently not interested in what other people have to say on the matter, so I will take Glasgow. In the middle of December, 1969, the difference between the time of sunrise in Glasgow and London was 42 minutes, and by the middle of February it was 27 minutes. The difference in the time of sunset was nine minutes in the middle of December. By January it had dropped to three minutes, and in February Glasgow had an advantage of seven minutes. Because of the geography of our country, Scotland has longer days during the summer, and during the winter we have longer nights. No juggling about with the clock will make any difference to that.
In Dublin, where Greenwich Mean Time was not legally adopted until about 1916, there are even more substantial differences. We have to operate, as we have done during this century, within considerable differences in the time as measured by the sun. We cannot go by the


sun in the highly-organised, interdependent society in which we live, and therefore we agreed on Greenwich Mean Time.
When we look into the matter further we see that there has been considerable pressure for changes in that system. In about 1908–1909, some courageous spirits tried to introduce Bills to establish what we now call "Summer Time". They had a long battle to make best use of the rather meagre daylight we have at certain periods of the year. That is a very powerful argument in reply to those who say that the adoption of British Standard Time means the loss of a great deal of production. That argument is repeatedly made, but if the adoption of British Standard Time means fewer hours in which to work, and accordingly loss of production, it is very strange that it was precisely on those grounds that British Summer Time was established, as distinct from Standard Time.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the introduction of Bills earlier in the century to establish Summer Time, to use, as he said, the meagre daylight at certain times of the year. Would not it be more correct to say that they were to use better the ample daylight during the summer time, which is exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman was saying?

Mr. Lawson: There was evidence that by adjusting the clock we could get more useful daylight. It is interesting that over the years the pressure has been to extend Summer Time into the winter, to shorten the period for which we return to Greenwich Mean Time. There are two Amendments on the Order Paper, but they do not propose that we should return to a fifty-fifty division of the year. I think that they propose that we should go back to Greenwich Mean Time for only about 13 to 14 weeks. The pressure, arising from experience over a long time, has been to extend British Summer Time further and further into the winter. If we are left with only about 12 to 13 weeks of Greenwich Mean Time, those farmers about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) spoke so eloquently would properly have very much more to complain of.

Mr. David James: In case I am not called to speak, as is likely, I should

explain the way in which I worked out my Amendment. I understand that the farmers want one hour extra daylight during the winter months. It is clear from the Nautical Almanac that we need use Greenwich Mean Time only from the middle of November to the middle of February to accomplish that. For the rest of the year, I am very impressed by the recreational aspects, such as the needs of people who want to garden and play golf.

Mr. Lawson: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is a substantial admission of the case of those who want to continue British Standard Time. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the farmers and the adjustments he would propose to make to suit them. I have nothing against the farmers. I should like to do all I can to help them. But there are many other people and we have to think in terms of what seems to be best for the majority, even if they have not written letters to us. We all know what we mean when we refer to "genuine" letters from constituents as distinct from an organised circular letter, and I have had only one genuine letter on this issue. I have to admit that it is against British Standard Time. If I went among my constituents, I would find, obviously, that many would be for British Standard Time and many would be against. In these circumstances, I have to use my own judgment.
I want to take up the point about judging from experience. In 1916, the nation adopted British Summer Time and has continued with it, with certain modifications. What is important is that during our most difficult years—I refer to the last war—the years when the need to mobilise our productive capacity was greatest, we continued with what we now call British Standard Time. We did not go back during those years, from about 1940 until well into 1945, to Greenwich Mean Time. But during the summers we added an hour and had Double Summer Time. It is significant also that, in 1947, when the nation was in great difficulty over fuel supplies, we reverted again to Double Summer Time. Here is the evidence of what the nation did in circumstances when it seemed that it had the greatest possible need to provide daylight during which the maximum effort could be made by our people.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of loss of production but did not pursue it. Does not he agree that the loss of an hour's daylight is serious for the building trade, as it is for agriculture?

Mr. Lawson: I agree in some cases, if there is no adjustment in time, but there can also be considerable savings. No one has yet mentioned the electricity industry. We understand that it calculates that, if it is allowed to operate on the basis of British Standard Time, which means spreading the load, it will save about £100 million in terms of equipment.
I want to touch on one or two aspects which seem significant. For example, two surveys were made, one in the December period of 1969 and the second in the February-March period of 1970. There was a substantial movement of opinion between those two surveys in most of the areas of Scotland. For all the doubts one might have about sampling opinion, the surveys were quite scientifically done.
On this basis, in December there was a net of those who, on balance, favoured British Summer Time. There was a net plus of 16 per cent. in the South-East in December and a net plus of 19 per cent in February-March; in the North-West, there was a net plus of 19 per cent. in December and a net plus of 20 per cent. in February-March. In Scotland, there was a minus against of 24 per cent. during December and this moved to a minus of only 4 per cent. in the February-March period.
These figures are significant in indicating a shift of opinion out of experience of advantages. People were constantly being fired at by propaganda in Scotland of a nationalist character. They were told that Scots were being compelled to toe the line because of people in London, and so forth. Nevertheless, even in Scotland there was this shift of opinion.
Let us look at the opinions of representative bodies. No one could be more concerned about this matter than the teachers. Yet, of all the educational organisations in Scotland, only the Headmistresses Association was against British Standard Time. The other teaching organisations were in favour of its permanent adoption. The local authorities showed themselves to be lukewarm.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Coatbridge, there were spontaneously organised demonstrations by mothers taking their children to school in the darkness? Those demonstrations were in protest against British Standard Time. Would he accept that these mothers were not just nationalist minded?

Mr. Lawson: Fair enough, but like myself, they are all subjected to the kind of propaganda that goes on. I might be described as nationalistic. I am a as Scottish as anyone. I am not bragging about it but I am as much concerned about my home country as anyone else is. I am well aware of what some people have tried to do to me and to the rest of my fellow Scots. The fact is that, despite the deluge of the nationalistic line we have been subjected to, over the months I have referred to there was apparently a decided shift of opinion following experience.
I was interested to note from a programme earlier this week that even in Stornoway a mother was found whose children were going to school in darkness but who said that she would, if she could, vote for British Standard Time. She accepted it as a system which produced benefits as well as disadvantages. We all recognise that there are disadvantages. We should like long mornings as well as long nights. Unfortunately we cannot get them, and we have to choose.
We have to face the question of how we want to use the limited hours of daylight we have. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) produced some very valid arguments. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that there is one argument he did not produce but which is nevertheless relevant. It concerns the children going to school in the morning. I have seen them going in bands to school and wearing luminous jackets and so on. These children are going to school more cautiously and in many cases accompanied. But look at them when they come dashing out of the school gate at night, getting out as quickly as they can for home or to play around the streets. One might well think of this matter in terms of the attitude towards the need for caution, and caution is more likely to be part and parcel of the attitude in the mornings when it is dark. I throw that point in for what


it is worth as a factor. Even from that point of view, the evidence seems to be that this is a good change. But I am thinking principally in terms of time, of using the daylight hours we have.
I shall vote tonight in support of British Standard Time.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I welcome the fact that we are to have a free vote, but, for reasons which I will deploy, I must confess that the exercise of a free vote on this occasion has caused me concern. I am convinced that if there were a referendum now or in six weeks' time, British Standard Time would be thrown out overwhelmingly. I am convinced, from the nature of the speeches we have listened to and the pressures that have been on us as Members of Parliament, particularly during the General Election, that we are being pressed to reject British Summer Time.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that if British Standard Time is voted down it is by no means the end of the road. We have still to consider what we must do in winter with a limited number of daytime hours. I come from an industrial area, and when British Standard Time was put forward organisations in my area deployed very good arguments for having a constant time in Britain throughout the year. I believe that during the debate in the House I was the only Conservative Member of Parliament to intervene and to say that I had good reason for supporting the Measure. If I was right then, why should I be wrong now in spite of all the pressures that have been put on Members of Parliament?
The reasons were varied. In modern industrial society, particularly in South Yorkshire and Sheffield, more and more people work on shifts. The shifts starts at 6 in the morning, continue until 2 p.m. and then there is another shift, beginning at 2 in the afternoon and finishing at 10 in the evening. If the nation is to use to the best advantage its capital assets, then it is a fair assumption that an increasing proportion of the population will become used to coming home and going to work at awkward hours and in the dark.
I am a little disappointed that we must now come to a decision. I have tried

to canvass opinion among those who put forward ideas for supporting British Standard Time some three years ago. I accept that mothers of small children and housewives are still apprehensive, and I accept that many school teachers join in this apprehension, but the opinion among responsible members of society whom I have also canvassed is that it is a pity that perhaps the emotional wave of feeling means that Parliament must deal with this issue now. Could we not adapt the system and not switch from summertime to wintertime and vice versa?
I was particularly impressed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) when he stressed the value of the long afternoon. I believe that the long afternoon will prove to be more valuable than many of us at present realise. Many people I have met value for a variety of reasons the longer afternoon for recreation and sport, particularly if they are on night shift or morning shift and can use the daylight to spend some time in the garden or allotment, or to pursue some type of relaxation, even walking, during these critical winter months.
I should like for the purposes of clarification to examine what sort of system we could return to. Roughly, we could go back to four to five months of winter time and seven or eight months of British Summer Time, presumably as determined by the Home Secretary. If we were to go back, what would be the reaction of the population, and what would they prefer? I have discussed this matter with many industrialists who face this problem in my area, and I believe they would prefer a winter time of, say, not more than ten weeks. In England—and I am not here talking about Scotland, Northern Ireland and parts of Wales—the critical period with which we are dealing is 10 weeks where the dark early morning is quite intolerable to many of us who have not yet become used to it. If these 10 weeks are considered to be critical, do we value not having to switch over in spring and then back again in the autumn? There is a feeling that for a variety of reasons a changeover twice a year is inconvenient and that if we can avoid it we should try to do so.
Could we not have a compromise? This is the point at which arguments in


this debate have been far too weak. Somebody suggested to me that during this critical period we could have a Scottish winter time, a Welsh winter time, and a Northern Irish winter time. Others would suggest that this would be difficult and in a debate at this time we must carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages. But this approach has not been seriously considered, as far as I know.
I intervene in this debate, as I did in the original debate on this subject, to put the predicament that faces many people. We are told in the social survey that some 59 per cent. of the people consider that this present system has made very little difference to their lives, except in one area where the figure was 56 per cent. I believe that the light afternoons, when we have them, will be much more important during this intolerable period of, say, 10 weeks than many of us at present imagine. Many of us will regret having to return to a situation in which we have to switch from summer time to winter time and then back again in spring and autumn. I am sure that the people of this country would ultimately regret the decision to reject British Standard Time.
We have not the full statistical information about the extent to which B.S.T. has reduced the number of serious road accidents, including deaths. The British Road Laboratory has given an indication that it could increase safety, but at this time have we enough firm evidence of a convincing nature? I personally would like British Standard Time to continue for a further experimental period so that we could be more certain of the alternative that is before us.
I find myself in the predicament of having to go against the letters and telegrams that have been sent to me by constituents who generally dislike B.S.T. and pressure groups, and I include the construction industry and certain trade unions. But tonight at this time I ask for an extension of British Standard Time. I shall be one Member in the Conservative ranks who will be supporting this Order tonight.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am glad to have the opportunity

to speak for a few moments from the point of view of sport and recreation, but I wish to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn).
This matter certainly involves a balance of considerations and I join in the general welcome to the fact that we are to have a free vote. However, as I look around the Chamber I see very few hon. Members who are likely to be swayed by any argument of any sort. And, sad to say, I am one of them. Perhaps we should have more free votes and then we should become used to regarding this Chamber as a great forum for debate in which opinions would actually change during the ebb and flow of argument.
In regard to the arguments dealing with the effect of British Standard Time on schoolchildren, I feel that, on balance, there is likely to be a greater weight of argument in favour of the course recommended by the Order than if it is defeated. It is easy to whip up opposition, and we remember that emotions were aroused when the experiment began. We can take for what it is worth the evidence of the public opinion polls, but if the experiment is ended, there is likely to be a much more forthright body of opinion demonstrating in favour of a situation that will have gone by default.
When the Labour Government were considering what attitude they should take originally, it fell to me as the Minister responsible for sport to ascertain the views of sporting bodies. The House will not be surprised that the sporting and other organisations involved with recreation and leisure were overwhelmingly in favour of British Standard Time. Their consideration is worth a moment's thought by the House.
We are dealing here with the recreation and leisure possibilities of several million people. I know that the hon. Member for Hallam plays a leading rôle in Sheffield in the organisation of works sports. He knows, as I do, that people who try to organise sporting opportunities in which people can participate, as distinct from being spectators, regard the extra hour as of tremendous value in the life of the country, because they have the job of finding the pitches and making the opportunities for people to take part.
When I became the Minister responsible for sport I found that for years nobody had thought seriously about the effects of the British climate on the sporting scene and opportunities. We still close most of our parks early in the day. We do not have all-weather floodlit pitches. The creation of sporting opportunies during the winter at times when most people, coming out of factories, offices and shops, might wish to use our limited resources, had, in our typically British way, gone unplanned for years. Therefore, I was not surprised to find that, when asked about it, all the governing bodies in sport responsible for the organisation of events in which people could participate were overwhelmingly in favour of the extra hour.
It is worth noting the numbers involved. On any Saturday in this country there are more people playing soccer, our national game, than are to be found watching it. Every Saturday 1 million people play soccer. [Interruption.] This is true. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will accept from me that more people play soccer on Saturdays than watch it. This is a good and healthy thing.

Mr. Callaghan: Thank God!

Mr. Howell: Thank God, there are more people playing than watching soccer. One of our troubles on Saturdays is that too many people watch soccer who should be playing. I am sure that I carry the House with me on that point.
Between half and three-quarters of a million people play rugby union on Saturdays and quite a large number—about 200,000—play rugby league.
The numbers turning to golf are tremendous. Golf is probably the greatest of all the growth sports. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand, as I know that you take an interest in these things, that the extra hour for the golfer trying to get in 18 holes of golf, particularly at the weekend, is absolutely invaluable.
Turning to the gardening and allotment move, it is interesting that the number of people engaged in the hobby of gardening—a great deal of research has been carried out by the Sports Council—transcends the number actively en-

gaged in sport. That may be a good thing. Gardening is a timeless, ageless, hobby in which people indulge throughout their lives if they are keen gardeners. Hon. Members know that some of us speak feelingly on this subject.
To reject the Order tonight would seriously inconvenience, at a minimum estimate, 6 million or 7 million people who actively engage in sport and hobbies in the winter.
In addition, there are the great sports industries. I have a great deal of sympathy with them, but their case is not as important as that of the people actively participating in sports.
We need to think about the sports which are having difficulty surviving. Horseracing comes to mind at once as a sport which is in a perilous state at the moment. I hesitate to advance Treasury arguments—[An HON. MEMBER: "Wigg."]—I venture to comment that, had it not been for the brilliant thought which promoted Lord Wigg to his present situation, horseracing would have been in a more parlous state than it is. I am glad that, whatever people may think of my noble Friend's activities, at any rate in his present activities he seems to have a large measure of support from all parts of the House. Lord Wigg is certainly doing a good job. But that is not the point. The point is that unless we can attract people to racecourses the future of horseracing, which is important from the point of view of the export of blood stock, betting interests, Treasury interests, and the man who wants a flutter, we cannot make a market in bookmaking on the course, which dominates the whole of these questions.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman is talking about horseracing. Does B.S.T. have a bearing on the number of people who attend horseracing in winter?

Mr. Howell: One matter which pleases me is that the support for National Hunt racing far transcends that for flat racing—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As a matter of fact, it does. If the House is interested in statistics, there were more people at Newbury last Friday watching a National Hunt meeting than appear on any Saturday in the flat racing season. There is a great deal of public interest in jumping


meetings, but that has not too much to do with the situation. However, as I was challenged, I felt that I should produce these statistics out of my head.

Mr. David James: Will the hon. Gentleman, as a former Minister for sport, concede that there would not be National Hunt racing unless there was hunting?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I do not wish to declare an interest. However, I think that that would be out of order.

Mr. Howell: I am glad to have your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this discourse on blood sports.
It must be transparently obvious that the extra hour in the winter is of great importance to the racing authorities. People have to travel to get to racecourses. If the premise which I have put forward is sound, as I believe it to be, that it is in the interests of racing that we have a good attendance at the race track, it must be self-evident that the extra hour is of great importance.
So it is with other spectator sports—particularly association football and rugby. It is clear that it matches have to start early or, alternatively, have to play on into the dark with floodlighting and so on, the effect upon attendances—[Interruption.]—Most rugby union grounds do not have floodlighting. I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman. I shall be interested to know how he will be voting tonight.
The sports bodies which organise spectator events in the winter very much welcome the extra hour. From the point of view of recreation and sport generally, it seems that the case for British Standard Time has been more than made out, because of the opportunities which it gives to at least six to seven million people in the exercise of their leisure pursuits. For that reason alone, I shall support the Motion.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: Like so many hon. Members who have preceded me in this debate, I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few moments. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) was the first in this

debate to mention Northern Ireland, because we are covered by this Order in the same way as Scotland, Wales and England are.
A few weeks ago I appealed in the columns of the local Press for views on British Standard Time. I was not surprised to receive the heaviest mailbag that I have ever received on any subject during my seven years membership of this House. I realise that there is a danger in drawing too many inferences from a certain number of letters that one receives, but I believe that as there were many more letters than I have received on any other subject, the facts which I seek to deduce from them are not wholly unreasonable. About 4 per cent. advocated a continuance of B.S.T., and these were all from the teaching profession.
A point which it is valid to make in a debate of this kind is that Northern Ireland is the most westerly part of the United Kingdom, particularly when one thinks of County Fermanagh. Before we start we are 25 minutes behind G.M.T. When it becomes one hour and twenty-five minutes, as it does under B.S.T., it strains one's tolerance considerably. It was therefore with total astonishment that I read in paragraph 156 of the White Paper that there was a large measure of indifference on the subject in Northern Ireland but that the arguments weighed fairly evenly for and against B.S.T. I am not disputing that somebody somewhere made such a suggestion for inclusion in the White Paper, but I should like to know who that person was, and what on earth he had been doing for the three years when he should have been seeking information about the general feeling on the subject. The balance of view is certainly not in favour of retaining midmorning darkness.
In the middle of December the sun rises in London at 9.04 a.m. In Belfast it rises at 9.45, and in Fermanagh, at about 10 o'clock. It is intolerable, in an agricultural area, to have this sort of burden to face in the mornings. One of the letters which I received, and which I found vastly amusing, was from a gentleman who wrote:
Last Christmas I saw the sun rise at 9.50 a.m. Looking at it I said 'You are not going to make the meridian by noon today'.
The argument which has been frequently advanced is that it is desirable,


perhaps with a view to looking towards Western Europe, to standardise the time with Europe. I think that this argument has been demolished in the speeches that we have heard today. The world's largest consumer market, the United States of America, has four time zones, and its next door neighbour, Canada, has five. I think that that demolishes any argument that there may be some merit in the standardisation of time.
What about the position in the construction industry? Very few sites in Northern Ireland are lit and we are, therefore, dependent on daylight. What is more, frost does not clear until daybreak, and, therefore, it is nearly ten o'clock before the building industry is operating at reasonable stretch.
I do not wish to duplicate the arguments which have been advanced in connection with the postmen.
The case on behalf of dairymen has not been made, and again I am drawing on the correspondence that I have received. One man says:
Notes are left on the doorstep. I cannot see them in the darkness. I have to read them, so I have to go out to my van which has its headlights on, read the note, see what is required, and then go back to the house to deliver the milk.
This is intolerable for such a person. Added to that, my mailbag has contained several complaints about the 50p. piece being confused with the 10p. piece.
I think that the argument about schoolchildren having an hour's daylight when they leave school in the afternoon has been overplayed, because that omits the question of homework, which normally has to be done before anything else. One therefore has the situation that children go to school in the dark, and by the time they have finished their homework and are free to play it is dark again. They are two-way losers.
There is a kind of psychological point which I have never fully been able to understand. It is that on a dark morning one is unwilling to work, that there is a slowing down of one's actions and reflexes, and it seems darker at 7 a.m. than at 7 p.m., even though at both times it is pitch dark. This is part of the illogicality of the argument, but everyone who has been in the House knows and accepts late nights rather more than early hours.
One has to consider, too, shoppers. There is a tendency in Northern Ireland for people to do the bulk of their shopping in the morning, rather than during any other part of the day. With dark mornings they will not set off and do their shopping. The result is that the shopkeeper is hanging around in the afternoon. He does not get his usual custom, but he has to pay the cost of increased electricity, and so on, in the morning. Quite often the shopper tends to adjust to a concentrated Saturday morning's shopping, rather than doing it throughout the week.
Then there is the question of sport. Is it really valid to argue about the sacrifice of those who may be sportingly inclined when for the months that we are discussing, 16 weeks, it is normally too cold or wet to go out at all?
One reason why accidents to children have, thank goodness, declined in the morning is that it is not uncommon for working mothers to miss an hour's work to take their children to school. This fact has not so far been adequately expressed in our deliberations.
I conclude with a quotation on, I think, the most delightful postcard that I received. It contains just six words with which I wholly agree:
Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee".

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I have been impressed with the sincerity and conviction that have characterised every speech so far. Equally, I was impressed with the impartiality of the Home Secretary in presenting this White Paper Cmnd. 4512. Having examined the White Paper in detail, I consider it to be a lucid analysis of the experiment that has taken place since the introduction of B.S.T. I think that only the uncharitable would question the impartiality of the authors of the White Paper but, having seen the effects of this experiment of introducing B.S.T. I invite the House to resist its continuance and to vote against the Order.
Perhaps the most illuminating point on this somewhat dark subject is to be found in paragraph 18 of the White Paper where it says:
North-west of a line running from Devon to Tees-side, particularly in Scotland, people, especially women, the elderly and outdoor


workers, felt greatly inconvenienced by the change and strongly favoured a return to the old system …
I suppose it was not altogether surprising that the less direct the effects of B.S.T. on individuals the more readily they accepted the continuance of the experiment. B.S.T. has produced two new developments in the British way of life. We have seen the advent of darker mornings and of a completely new industry, the manufacture of luminous armbands for school children.
I wish to reflect not only the interests of my constituents, but those of postal workers. I should declare an interest as a former postal and telegraph officer and a member of the Union of Post Office Workers. Postal workers feel most concerned and aggrieved about the continuance of B.S.T. They make a tremendous contribution to community life. Whether they be postmen on their daily walks, telephonists serving in isolated telephone exchanges or postal and telegraph officers serving as clerks in the administrative offices or on public counters, all make an individual contribution to an essential public service. They serve the nation in many different spheres, whether in the Highlands and Islands, the Yorkshire Dales, the Devon moors or the busy urban areas of London and the provincial centres. The consensus of their views, based on their experience, is that British Standard Time must go.
A central feature of their argument is contained in the statistics in paragraph 116 on page 50 of the White Paper. Figure 27 shows the increase in the number of accidents affecting postmen during their normal delivery work. The figures break down into the following categories:
Fall on level outdoors, increase—10 per cent.
Fall on level ice and snow, increase—325 per cent.
Fall on level due to uneven ground, increase—150 per cent.
Fall down steps outdoors, increase—75 per cent
Striking against objects, increase—30 per cent.
It is clear from those brief statistics that there has been an appreciable increase in accidents to postmen and postal workers because of the effects of B.S.T.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) made an impressive speech in which he said that postmen he had seen in Dundee were about their work at 5.30 or 6 o'clock in the morning. At that time, irrespective of B.S.T., they were doing their work wholly in darkness. It might be of interest to my hon. Friend that the postman spends his first hour or one and a half hours sorting out the mail before he goes on to the streets.
In dealing with this point I will refer to a letter which I have received from the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers in which he says:
… with deliveries commencing at 7.15 a.m. and 7.30 a.m. respectively …
He is there referring to conditions in the provinces and London—
… British Standard Time means delivery postmen are delivering the first mail of the day in darkness and before the first light of dawn.
I think that postmen generally will be indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West for making on their behalf on a previous occasion a tremendous speech about their susceptibility to bites from dogs. I say with the greatest kindness that the stance he has taken up tonight is somewhat inconsistent with the stance he took up on that occasion. It is all right protecting the postman from being bitten by dogs, but if the postman can in the darkness fall over the dog from which he is seeking protection his susceptibility to bites might be that much greater.

Mr. Denis Howell: As a dog owner I would not dream of putting my dog out in the dark. Does it not follow that people are more likely to keep their dogs in, and does not this act against the argument which my hon. Friend is putting forward?

Mr. Morris: It all depends on the individual dog owner.
If we accept the argument in favour of retention of B.S.T. that it will keep us in line with Western European time, we shall go out of line with American time. It is not unusual for a nation to have several different time zones. The United States of America has four time zones, yet I have never heard that commercial interests in the United States complained about the difficulty of contacting


their business colleagues in different parts of the country. The argument about coming into line with European time is not valid.
My hon. Friend the former Minister of Sport, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), said that if we voted in favour of the abolition of B.S.T. we should be doing a disservice to golfers, gardeners, footballers, punters, racegoers and those who want to enjoy their leisure. I do not mind people enjoying their leisure, they are entitled to follow their hobbies; but I cannot in all honesty accept that people should be allowed to follow their leisure if it means that other people who are serving the community in many different ways are, as a consequence, obliged to suffer.
There is evidence that accidents have increased. There is evidence that, because of British Standard Time, productivity has fallen. One has only to read the White Paper. In the Post Office, it is estimated that productivity of postal workers has fallen a significant 1 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who speaks for the building workers, can talk about the impact and loss of productivity which has affected the building industry. We are having increased accidents, loss of productivity and increased costs as a consequence of British Standard Time.
This House must seriously consider which way it should vote tonight. Many people have argued that the White Paper indicates a massive indifference by the British people to the question of British Standard Time unless they are directly affected. This House tonight should have regard to those industries and individuals who are affected and say, "No" to the extension of British Standard Time.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. David James: I entirely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) that we should consider the people who work dark and dangerous hours before we consider the sporting aspect.
Having said that, I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye after an absence of two Parliaments, particularly as it is 11 years almost to the day when I made my first maiden speech and you were good enough to congratulate me—misguidedly, no

doubt—upon it. I have taken advice on this matter and I understand that in Parliament, as in life, one cannot lose one's maidenhood twice. So I am not seeking any privileges as a result of my comeback.
I do not want to rehearse arguments which have already been covered, but I cannot agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he suggests that this is a Scottish plot or something concerning only the countryside, because I listened with interest and pleasure to the maiden speeches, from both sides of the House, by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money), all of whose speeches I enjoyed, and I can assure hon. Members that the inhabitants of North Dorset take exactly the same view.
I have had a very large number of letters and I have canvassed a very large number of opinions. Unlike some hon. Members who have found one or two dissentient voices, I have found no dissentient voices whatever. Everyone in my rural constituency wishes to revert to the G.M.T. arrangement.
I will not go into details about agricultural workers, building workers and others—that has all been done before—but I should like to make two particular points. My horticulturists tell me that, as a result of British Standard Time, they cannot, in winter, cut their lettuces and get them to market on the day on which they are cut. For about four months, they are deprived of their fresh market because their produce cannot arrive in time.
My second point is one which was made to me by a businessman this afternoon and rather tends to demolish the business argument. The business argument is that we will possibly join Europe and that it is convenient to have the same time system when telephoning one's opposite number in Paris or Bonn. As my friend pointed out to me, however, it is no earthly use arriving at one's office at 9 o'clock in the morning with a view to ringing up one's opposite number in Paris or in Bonn if the girl who operates the switchboard does not arrive until 9.45. There is, I think, a marked tendency on the part of junior


staff not to observe B.S.T. but unilaterally, as it were, to revert to G.M.T. This, therefore, is not working in practice.
I agree with the hon. Member for Openshaw that those of us—and I am one of them—who are dedicated Europeans should utterly reject the European argument, because, in so far as we may or may not be going into Europe, what we have to learn to do is to think continental, in the same way as the Australians and the Americans think continental. One does not have to be in either of those countries for 48 hours before one becomes perfectly accustomed to dealing with time zones.
If I might be frivolous for a moment, I would say that one has to get one's answers right. The first time I went to America, I was taken at 5 p.m. to the then fashionable new Bunny Club in Chicago for a drink. I thought that it would be rather amusing to telephone my wife in Sussex from those surroundings. Unpardonably for a sailor, I applied the G.M.T. correction the wrong way and got my wife out of bed at 1 o'clock in the morning when I imagined that I was telephoning her at 11 o'clock at night. As a result, I was not popular. I mention that cautionary tale because one has only to be in a continent dealing with zonal times for even a matter of hours to realise that there is no argument against time zones.
None of us would wish to leave this debate without paying tribute to the kindly shadow, which to me is very present here, of Sir Alan Herbert and all the work that he has done concerning this matter. I hope that everyone read his letter in The Times yesterday. He pointed out that this country was given the great privilege of Greenwich as the standard meridian but that the obviously convenient arrangement was a 15-degree limit of longitude for the zone; that owing to the fact that we have adopted Central European Time we now have a fantastic 33 degree distorted time zone; that Warsaw and Cork keep the same time even though the sun rises 2¼ hours earlier in Warsaw; and that this arrangement simply does not make sense, and never has done.
I know that I would be out of order if I spoke to the two Amendments, neither

of which has been called. Among others, however, I detect from both sides of the House—I gather this from conversations outside as well as inside the Chamber—some sensitive points of view put forward by, for example, the former Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), and others, that consideration should be given to the recreational impact of the Order, although it must take second place to the working impact. I believe that the way in which we can do this best is by cutting down the period to an absolute minimum.
As I said in an intervention—in case I was not fortunate enough to be called—all that one has to do is to consult the Nautical Almanac. If one is firmly based in London, one looks at the 52 degrees south column. Those who, like me, happen to be half-Sassenach, look at the 56 degrees south column, which takes in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and one reaches a bracket where one makes good the hour. It is not, as one or two hon. Members have said, 10 weeks. It is not, as it used to be in the old days, 20 weeks. It is a mere matter of 13 weeks. As has been pointed out, the 13 weeks involved are those which are least useful to gardeners, golfers and others because, generally speaking, through late November, December, January and the first fortnight in February the weather tends to be lousy.
I hope that the Home Office will look at this suggestion, which has come from hon. Members on both sides, with a considerable degree of seriousness because I am almost certain that, as a result of the vote tonight, new arrangements will have to be laid before the House. I hope that attention will be paid to the proposition of reverting to G.M.T., but for a very much shorter period.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I wish, first, to congratulate the four maiden speakers, who have made excellent contributions to our debate. Without naming them all, I must refer to the hon. Member the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), whose predecessor, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, was highly thought of in the House.
I was intrigued by the humour of the Nationalist from the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), who is likely to need


in his somewhat lonely position, being the only member of his party represented here.
A great deal of the discussion has taken place as if the vote had already occurred. Everybody seems to think that it is a foregone conclusion that B.S.T. will go. I suggest that at this stage we should wait and see what happens. An amazing number of people seem to think that because we have B.S.T. they are losing an hour. That is not the case. It is merely a question of the country organising its time in the way it sees fit; and we have arranged things so that we have an extra hour at night during a short period in the winter when we have so little daylight.
A lot has been said about the difference between living in the extreme North compared with living in the South. However, the ratio of difference, if it can be put that way, between living in the North of Scotland and the South of England is precisely one hour. That is the ratio whether one lives in the far North of Scotland, the North-East of England, in the South or in any other part of the country. There is only one hour's difference.
Bearing this in mind, it is extraordinary how the Scottish argument has come into the picture. If anything, it is an argument not against B.S.T. but against living in Scotland in the winter time. [Interruption.] Hon. Members know my interest. I have spent a lot of my life in Scotland—in the North-East of Scotland at that—and a lot of it in England. I can therefore, speak with knowledge of this issue. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who is my M.P., will accept that it is also an argument for living in Scotland in the summer time, when that part of the country has a lot of daylight.
The advantages of B.S.T. were explained by the Home Secretary and I will not repeat them. I urge hon. Members not to put aside the question of timetables and communications, particularly as today we have increasing communications with the Continent in every respect, by which I mean by every means of transport, for business and holidays, by road, air and sea. All these advantages should not be swept aside as if they were of no significance. Whatever arguments are adduced about the time in the morning

when typists or others begin work in this country, it is easily seen from the map in the Command Paper that the same time zone applies over a very wide area.
It should not be forgotten that many alterations must be made twice a year when the clock is shifted under the old system. Indeed, far more work is involved than many people appreciate. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) refer to farmers making a change eight times during the year, on four occasions when the clock was changed twice. That may be overdoing it, but it demonstrates some of the problems that arise.
I have spoken to many elderly people and they have assured me that they appreciate the extra hour in the evening, particularly in the winter. They do not want to get up early. Young people undoubtedly like it, and we have heard how it suits sportsmen. This latter point cannot be easily cast aside. While we must think about farmers and building workers, we must also consider sportsmen because millions of people are affected by this extra hour.
I have been slightly annoyed by the arguments adduced by some of my neighbours in Scotland, who have genuinely declared that the extra hour is designed merely to allow Southern sportsmen to have an extra hour of leisure. We had the same argument many years ago when we had Double Summer Time. This extra hour enables many people, including my constituents, to, for example, dig the allotment or collect the cabbages. In any event, in Scotland I know many of my neighbours who make this claim, who are self-employed, who are able to take the day off to do a spot of fishing or shooting. [Interruption.] I assure hon. Members that this is so. I know many members of the farming population and how they organise their time.
There seem to be three main groups of objectors; farmers and farm workers, building contractors and postmen. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) thought that the critical period lasted about 10 weeks. I doubt whether it is as long as that. The weeks from about now to the middle of January make up the critical period, with the longest night—21st-22nd December—corning roughly in the middle.

Mr. David James: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will appreciate that as the world is going round the sun as well as itself revolving the mornings do not start drawing out until 2nd January, while the evenings, thanks be to God, will start drawing out on Thursday of next week. The middle point, therefore, is 2nd January and not the shortest day.

Mr. Mackie: I appreciate that point, which is very ably shown in the sketch in the Command Paper. Nevertheless, the critical period is still only six or seven weeks and not as much as 10 weeks. It stretches out at one end or the other.
It should also be remembered that in the middle of this period the school children have a couple of weeks' holiday. A little alteration in school times might almost solve their difficulties over the other weeks.
We all insist on getting our mail as early as possible, but as we are presumably soon to be under new management at the Post Office perhaps something can be done to help the postmen. I have seen them going about with torches rather awkwardly fixed across their chests and trying to do their work in the dark by that means, but a miner's torch worn in the hat might be more suitable. They would then only have to bend down to see what they were doing. I seem to be giving Lord Hall's successor some helpful tips. I am sure that the postmen could be helped a lot, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West is right in saying that in the winter postmen in any case do the bulk of their work in the dark.
I think that I can claim to speak fairly knowledgeably about farmers. Most of their work in the period I have given is with stock, and at that time most stock is indoors. I think that it was the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) who made a point of the great difficulty experienced by farmers in loading stock on dark winter mornings. He spoke as though farmers were loading stock every day during that six or seven week period, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) knows that that is not the case. A farmer probably loads stock once a month, and if he cannot pen the animals the night

before or make other suitable arrangements he is making a bad job.
When I was at the Ministry I had a letter from a farmer in Lincoln complaining about B.S.T., and it was obvious that he had not tried in any way to adapt himself to it. When I wrote and told him so, he very courteously replied that I was quite right.
Cows—and other stock—hate the change that comes with the G.M.T. system and there is a drop in the milk yield. They just do not like any change in milking. It is wonderful what can be done with a routine. For instance the milking routine can start at 10 o'clock in the morning and finish at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. That leaves the cowmen with time off from 2 o'clock until 10 o'clock in the evening, when milking starts again and finishes about 2 o'clock in the morning. The men then go to bed. Many people think that that is ridiculous, but the point is that the cowmen have those hours between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m. seven days a week for their shopping and social life. It is wonderful what can be done by a little reorganisation.
Men working outside with tractors may find some difficulty, but most tractors are fitted with lights nowadays and it is quite easy to deal with that problem.
There is a lot of inside work to be done in the winter—dressing potatoes, and so on—and I am quite certain that over this short period, or even a period of 10 weeks, farmers can quite easily organise themselves so as not to lose any time at all. A little organisation and planning would not cause too much trouble and would obviate any possible loss. We should note what the Ministry of Agriculture says in the Command Paper on this subject.
I started farming in 1926 when we worked a 9¾-hour day on six days a week. In many places that is now down to an 8¼-hour day on five days a week. Because of this the amount of overtime for which the farmer has to pay has been considerably reduced. It will not be long before we are down to an 8-hour day for five days a week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West said, if we talk to the farmers and other people, they come round to a different way of thinking.
I am no authority on the building industry, but I have had a word about


it with the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). I appreciate that British Standard Time causes difficulty in the building trade. The situation could be helped by making a small alteration in times and some planning. I appreciate that loss has resulted in the building industry, but grave doubt is cast on the figure of £30 million in the White Paper.
I think that we must take the Command Paper as a guide. The hon. Lady the Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt) doubted its authenticity because of the 101 per cent. which one column added up to. I know, having been in it, that the Ministry rounds off percentages to the nearest whole point. Therefore, I hope that she will not be too hard on the ladies and gentlemen in the box on her left. Sixty per cent. of the people affected by British Standard Time are prepared to accept it. Only five per cent. of industry and commerce is dead against it. This is a point of which we must take cognisance.
Other than the circulars from the National Farmers' Union, the building workers' organisation and the Post Office workers' union, I have had only two letters of protest. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) asked a statistician to work out the figures. If we do that, we come to the wrong decision, because the majority of people who are in agreement never write to us and say so. It is only the protestors who write. We must take the Command Paper as our guide and not the dozen letters or so which we receive.
We have had British Standard Time for only two years. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) referred to the fantastic rows which there have been about it. Between the wars there were rows about ordinary Summer Time and then about Double Summer Time during the war. Nobody wants to do away with British Summer Time now. After a suitable lapse of time, when people realise that they have to adjust themselves to and plan for these things and that there are advantages in them, we receive no more letters about them.
We have heard a great deal about the North and North-West of Scotland. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), whose constituency

undoubtedly is the furthest north in Scotland, apart, of course, from that of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), held a poll among his constituents and, according to a report in the Aberdeen People's Journal, they came out in favour of British Standard Time. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) also canvassed a number of his constituents. They, too, are in favour of British Standard Time. If hon. Members have any doubts, I suggest that they read the leader in The Guardian today which says that there are more of us like owls than larks, and we prefer an extra hour of daylight at the end rather than at the beginning of the day.
I appeal to hon. Members to give this matter very deep thought. I hope that they will not scrap British Standard Time out of hand.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) made a powerful speech on behalf of sportsmen who, naturally enough, prefer light evenings. I sympathise with them, but I feel that their interests must be balanced against those of working people. The hon. Gentleman talked about football and the weekends but, with respect to him, this debate is not about weekends. It is concerned with the working week.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred several times to Scotland and suggested that practically all the opposition to British Standard Time came from Scotland. However, I speak as a Wiltshireman, and I can assure the House that there is very strong feeling among my constituents against British Standard Time.
I agree that opinion is divided. I have received about a hundred letters, in contrast to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) who said that he had received two or three. It may be argued that a hundred letters is not a great number to receive in terms of the size of my constituency. The fact remains that the vast majority opinion is against B.S.T., and I intend to vote against it.
We last debated the matter two years ago, when less than a third of the House voted for the Bill. I did not feel very


strongly about it at the time, and I do not think that my constituents did. Certainly I did not receive a hundred letters on the subject on that occasion.
Two years ago, we were assured that industrialists and exporters wanted the change. The Under-Secretary of State said that the National Union of Agricultural Workers approved of the change, and we were assured that there was growing support in the country as a whole. As I do not have to leave my house very early in the mornings and the idea of light evenings appealed to me, I abstained at the time. However, the position is very different today. There is now strong feeling in my constituency against B.S.T. and, whatever my personal inclination, I must represent that majority feeling in my vote. I still like light evenings but, if the majority of my constituents want to abolish B.S.T., I must vote in that way.
Most of the points for and against have been fully covered already, but perhaps I might give four brief reasons for the strong feeling among my constituents. The first concerns agricultural workers. Whatever they felt in 1968 and whatever their union said, they disapprove of B.S.T. today. All hon. Members have been sent a document from the N.U.A.W. It held a survey among its members, and the view taken is that B.S.T. has created extra overtime, a reduction in their leisure time and disruption to their leisure and social life. In addition, it is felt that children are exposed to greater risks. It is clear that the union is overwhelmingly against B.S.T., and I have a great many of its members in my constituency.
I then come to the farmers. I cannot pretend to have received a great many letters from them. Farmers do not make a habit of writing letters to me. However, I have attended meetings of farmers, and it is clear that the majority, though not all of them, want us to abolish B.S.T. The National Farmers Union has written to hon. Members saying that there is a substantial majority of farmers against B.S.T. Their view is that it creates traffic hazards, causes loss of production in mid-winter and gives rise to extra costs as a result of farmers having to use electricity on tractors and in yards and buildings. The hon. Member for Enfield, East said that farm workers can have

lights on their tractors. They can, and they do, but this costs money.
We have had a great deal of discussion about builders, and there is little more that one can say on this topic. No doubt, the dark mornings increase the costs to the builders. They traditionally start work at eight o'clock in the morning, and in my constituency very often at 7.30 Either they start work in the dark or they delay their start by an hour. If they work in the dark the have to use artificial lighting, and it is difficult for a small builder to arrange to have artificial lighting on the site. If they start an hour later, the lorries bringing the plant come during the peak periods of traffic and this causes dislocation and additional expense. I believe the builders have an overwhelming case.
What about the general public? I would say that 80 per cent. of the letters that I have received are very strongly against continuing British Standard Time. At meetings with my constituents, this has come through very clearly to me. I do not know what time hon. Members think the average person leaves home in the winter to go to work. In my constituency I would say that he leaves not later than 7.45 or perhaps 7.30 a.m. He leaves his house in the dark. He travels to work in the dark and he arrives at work in the dark, and this is exceedingly depressing, particularly in a foul and beastly winter. The same worker gets back at 5.30 or 6 p.m. It is already dark again, even under the present system, so he does not get much benefit from the extra hour of light in the evening. True, it may be slightly more pleasant during the weekend, but as I have said before I do not think this is a debate about weekends. It is a debate about the working week.
I should like to conclude by reading a letter which I received today from a constituent. It is revealing. My constituent writes:
As a parent and a head teacher of a country school I am sure that it is not in the interests of the children. Under the old system of reverting back to G.M.T. for the winter period all the children were able to go to school in daylight. Darkness in the evening was only for one or two days prior to the end of the autumn term and this did not apply to the youngest children who leave school either at 3.15 p.m. or 3.30 p.m. At present children of all ages have to be in school at the same time and so go to school in the dark.


I do not think either that road safety figures prove anything as we have not had very severe conditions for the last two winters.
Apart from children, most country people, who do not have the benefit of brightly lit streets, are penalised by this experiment.
I am sure that however your personal views may be, you will be expressing the views of the majority of your constituents if you vote against this Measure.
I can assure my constituent that I shall.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: As one who made my maiden speech at 4.30 in the morning. I can claim a little experience of the dangers of a dark morning.
As a Member for a West Wales constituency, may I express a difference of opinion with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who made this a Scottish issue? There is a great deal of concern in Wales, and especially rural West Wales, about British Standard Time. I have one concern about the presentation of the White Paper. The White Paper should have been presented in a form which did not include England and Wales together. Wales should have been presented separately, as was the case with Scotland. If one considers the zones shown in the first few pages, one can see that it would have been quite possible to do this and the figure for Wales could have been presented separately as they were for Scotland. In that case, my right hon. Friend would not have been quite so sure of himself in saying that this was a Scottish issue.
As a Member for a rural constituency, I shall have no hesitation in voting against the retention of British Standard Time. Obviously, the rural areas are affected, and affected much more than many other parts of the country.
I shall not go over the reasons put by hon. Members for voting against the Order. As a statistician before coming to the House, I must warn those who are basing their intention to vote to retain British Standard Time on the accident figures that those figures can be most misleading. We are told that the number of accidents has decreased. What do we see in the record of accidents to children?—probably a net decrease when we put the morning and the evening from 4 to 6 o'clock together. Yet if one were to take the period from 4 until 7 in the evening, an hour longer, the figures would

be very different. There would be a net increase in accidents and deaths among children between 5 and 14.
There are unquantifiable factors in the emphasis which is put on British Standard Time as improving safety for children. We know the circumstances in which children go to school in the morning. Undoubtedly, the public disquiet and concern has meant that mothers have been taking their children to school, or that drivers have been more careful because of the possible public reaction. We cannot measure how long this state of affairs will prevail, how long a mother will continue to take her children to school or how long a driver will continue to take special care. After British Standard Time has been accepted and the public concern for the safety of children had receded a little, the driver may relax his concentration in the early morning.
The situation in rural areas is of significant importance with regard to children. Many of the roads in Carmarthenshire have no pavement such as there is in urban or suburban areas. Children have to go to school in Carmarthenshire in the dark. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East and I travelled up by train together, he would notice the difference in daylight in the morning between Carmarthen and South-East England. It is probably nearly an hour.
Hon. and right hon. Members have said that the majority of people are basically not really interested or they are apathetic. The White Paper tells us that about 68 per cent. of people cannot give a reason one way or another why they are against or in favour of British Standard Time. Generally speaking, they are apathetic. We are concerned about the people who matter, and the people who matter are those who have to get up in the morning, builders, agricultural workers, farmers, and so on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is becoming almost like a revivalist meeting in South Wales. I am tempted to suggest that we should have television here to make a great impression.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) has spoken of the farming fraternity. Not only has the National Farmers' Union sent me a letter but both the Carmarthenshire branch of the Farmers' Union of Wales and the agricultural workers of South Wales have expressed concern, deep concern in the


case of the agricultural workers. It is just not true that the agricultural fraternity are satisfied with British Standard Time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), among others, has referred to the fact that in February and March, 1970, people were more ready to accept British Standard Time than they were in December, 1969. I am not sure what use one can make of that. Obviously, in February and March the impact of British Standard Time is not so great as it is in December. Whenever a survey is made, people tend to react to the situation of the day, and the situation in December is vastly different from that in March.
I could go on to highlight the importance of the lighter morning for the worker. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will say something about the construction industry if he catches the eye of the Chair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), the former Minister for Sport, referred to sport in general. Perhaps I may refer to one in which I claim to be a slight expert, which is rugby, as is natural for someone from South Wales. Did he realise, when he spoke of his concern that the rugby player cannot play his game in the dark hours, that the sport with the greatest appeal to the people of South Wales these days is floodlit rugby? On any midweek night when Llanelli plays Aberavon, Cardiff or Newport there will be a full house for a floodlit rugby football match. I am sure that the same applies to association football.
As the son of a colliery carpenter, and knowing the colliery workers, steel workers and builders, I know that if they have done their share of work in the day they do not fancy running out in their rugby shorts at 3 o'clock in the afternoon in midweek. If a miner has been underground for seven hours he has quite some stamina if he goes out at 3 o'clock and runs for 90 minutes.

Mr. Mackie: My hon. Friend must not put too much emphasis on South Wales. He must remember that shop workers and many other people have Wednesday or Thursday afternoon off,

and there are no floodlights in amateur grounds. My hon. Friend must think of them as well.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend should make a survey of the rugby grounds of South Wales. Most of the first-class grounds there have floodlights.
I do not want to pursue this matter. Suffice it for me to say that I have every intention of voting against the retention of British Standard Time.

9.3 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: It is very agreeable to be able to agree with such an agreeable speech from an hon. Member opposite. I endorse everything the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) said.
Throughout the debate I have listened with great care to every argument in favour of keeping British Standard Time. One, and one only, I suggest, merits serious consideration, and that is the argument about road casualities put forward by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). We should consider that point, and I hope that I shall be able to deal with it a little later.
I was not at all impressed by the other arguments in favour of its retention, particularly those from my compatriots on the other side of the House, including the exiled compatriot. Probably the best thing that I can say about the hon. Members for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) is that I salute them for having the courage to take a line which I am certain will be extremely unpopular in their constituencies. I only hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, West will not be bitten by a postman when he goes back home at the weekend.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), our exiled Scot, spoke with a rather different voice from that of many of the farmers in Scotland. He seemed to be particularly concerned about the problems which will arise with regard to his winter holidays on the Continent or elsewhere abroad through the complications arising from the timetables.
We have heard excellent maiden speeches in the debate. If it is not invidious for me to do so, I should like in particular to congratulate my hon.


Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) on a most exceptionally good speech. I am certain that, for the way in which he has championed this cause, all his constituents will have undying love and support for him and that we shall see him remaining in that seat for many years.
Praise should be given to those who have taken a great deal of trouble to compile this review. A great deal of work has gone into it, and it should be recognised. I make one exception, and that is the omission about the medical and health aspects, which have been barely touched upon.
The Road Research Laboratory statistics merit serious thought. But I suspect the figures because it seems to me that no credit has been given to various other contributory factors which have helped to reduce the casualty rate during these years. For example, no credit has been given to the massive road safety campaigns which have been conducted, nor to the increase in the number of seat-belts fitted to cars, nor to "breathtaking Barbara". Although one does not find a great many people drinking before they go to work early in the morning, and therefore, this may not be a very significant point, I feel that, as a result of the good work which the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) undertook in bringing in the breathalyser, a great many people no longer drive to work with a blinding hangover, which can easily be the cause of an accident in the mornings. If one takes these other factors into account, I do not think that the statistics are necessarily as valid as those who promote them would have us believe.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On the question of the Road Research Laboratory's figures—-and one obviously takes them seriously—does my hon. Friend recall that when this experiment was originally introduced the laboratory confidently announced that if British Standard Time had been in operation in 1964, there would have been 290 fewer casualties on the roads—neither more nor less? Does it not follow from this that the laboratory had a certain vested interest in the experiment?

Earl of Dalkeith: That may well be my hon. Friend's interpretation of the

situation and I have no evidence for disagreeing with him.
The link with Europe has been mentioned as one of the reasons for keeping British Standard Time, but that argument has been demolished absolutely by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison). He did so by pointing out that Italy juggles with its clock, and if Italy can do that there is no possible reason why we should not do so. It has been said that a number of business men are in favour of British Standard Time because it makes their contact with the Continent by telephone easier. Only about 45 minutes ago I was handed an up-to-date opinion poll taken in the Edinburgh City Business Club, which is comprised of business men. It shows that 75 per cent. were against British Standard Time and only 15 per cent. in favour. This is the view of business men, and one could not have a more up-to-date poll. It came to me only 45 minutes ago.
The difficulty about public opinion polls is that, although they may produce a significant answer, they give no indication of the strength with which somebody holds a view. It is my experience that everybody I have met who has been in favour of keeping B.S.T. has been mostly in favour in a rather lukewarm way, whereas practically all those who have been against B.S.T. feel passionately about it. It is a case of comparing real hardship with perhaps fairly minor inconvenience.
The view put forward by the ex-Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), that sportsmen would regard it as convenient to continue with B.S.T. should be seriously taken into account, but he neglected to mention that presumably sportsmen are included in public opinion polls. They are not singled out and excluded, and, so far as we can see, all the most recent polls show that a decided body of people throughout the country are on the whole against the continuation of B.S.T. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the leader in the Daily Telegraph that hit the nail firmly on the head, and he made a valid point in that respect.
The other point I wish to mention is that relating to the health aspect. Only


eight lines are devoted in this excellent review to the health side of the matter. I personally believe that the psychological effect of longer darker mornings should be taken seriously. It undoubtedly leads to a greater feeling of depression when people know that there is one more hour of darkness in the morning than there needs to be. I am not saying that it necessarily drives people to suicide, and if I were to make that suggestion the statistics would prove me wrong, because in the last two years the number of suicides has declined rather than increased. However, the statistics do not indicate how many people there are who at times feel pretty depressed and suicidal. They are reduced to a general state of b—mindedness. This may account for our having had so many industrial disputes in the last year or two. At any rate B.S.T. may have been a contributory factor. Any hon. Member who is a strong supporter of B.S.T. will merely say that the Labour Government caused all these disputes, but I believe that it has an effect on people since it is unnatural to have to get up one hour earlier during darkness.
I should like to quote an extract from a letter written by a woman doctor to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I believe that she also sent a letter to the Lancet and to the Scottish Sunday Express. She said in the letter:
It is well known that we have a biological rhythm and that heart-rate, blood pressure, temperature, liver function, all show increased daytime levels and a corresponding nocturnal reduction and that these changes are largely governed by light and darkness. Pathological depression, mental illness and suicidal tendencies are characterised by early-morning wakening. An extra hour of darkness in the morning only makes the agony worse.
It may not be within the knowledge of all hon. Members that light has definite effects on the animal, whether human or otherwise. Let me quote what happens to sheep. It may not be generally known that the ewe reaches the stage when she desires the tup due to the effect of the number of hours of daylight and the changing length of the day, which cause this process to take place. This is a photoelectrical process which results in the ewe coming to the right state of affairs for the tup. It may be that human beings are similarly attracted—

Mr. Norman Tebbit: What do Eskimos do in the winter?

Lord Dalkeith: I went through all the statistics that I could find last night. One thing which struck me was that the birth rate has been falling in the last two years.
I must pass from that to an agricultural subject which I thought was beautifully dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt) in her maiden speech. I should like someone to answer one question. I do not know who is to answer the debate. Perhaps I might ask the Home Secretary to bear this point in mind. If we are to continue with the same kind of agricultural support system that we have enjoyed for some time, I wonder whether the additional cost which falls upon Scottish farmers as a result of B.S.T. will be taken into account in future farm price reviews. This point, so far as I know, has never been answered specifically.
My last point concerns building. I shall be brief, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. In Scotland alone the cost of B.S.T. is about £8 million. This is at a time when we are desperately short of housing and there are 18,000 building workers out of work in Scotland. Can anything be crazier than to saddle this vital industry with such an unnecessary burden? I therefore hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will join in throwing out B.S.T. for good.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I want to make one or two comments, because I spoke against the Order when it was originally brought forward. I confess that I did not vote against it, because we got an assurance at the time that it would be an experiment for three years. Some hon. Members argued that it should be for only one year.
I felt passionately about this matter at the time, and nothing has happened since to change my mind. In fact, I am more convinced that we should get rid of this measure at the earliest possible moment. I remember saying when the Order was introduced that I could not understand why it should be brought forward. The thought that occurred to me then was that one day the Minister went into his office and the civil servant who gave the Minister the benefit of his advice


said, "Mr. Minister, here is a little proposal which has been tucked away in this pigeon-hole for a number of years. I have brought it out on odd occasions and the Minister at the time has put it back again. As you have nothing to do next week, perhaps you would like to introduce it." I could not think of any other reason for the Order being introduced.
We were told that it was important for the business men because they had to be able to phone their counterparts in Europe at the same time. I then discovered that there was a difference of one hour between Italy and the rest of Europe—and Italy is in the Common Market. So what about the business men in Italy and France? They apparently did not lose any sleep because there was one hour difference between those countries. We then discussed this whole matter in relation to the United States where there is five-hour difference. It was an absurd and ridiculous argument. The main reason I opposed it at the time, and why I have continued to oppose it, is that it has such an effect on the lives of the people who work outside, in the construction industry, as postmen, as agricultural workers, and as other outside workers. They are badly affected by B.S.T.
On the previous occasions I tried to explain to the Ministers concerned—and they happened to be our Ministers—that when a building worker starts work about one hour later in most cases—it has been three-quarters of an hour later sometimes—it means that he gets home that much later at night, and he loses that time at home with his family. Some people do not seem to understand that building workers may have long distances to travel. Many of them are employed at large sites, building power stations, which may be half an hour's journey away from a big city.
No one seemed to think that that was a serious argument, and I can understand that 68 per cent. of the people do not mind one way or the other which system we have. One reason is that a worker in an engineering factory, for instance, goes to work and switches on the light. B.S.T. makes no difference to him, but it makes a big difference to the building worker.
We have heard the accident statistics. Unfortunately, I do not have them with

me, but I believe that there has been a marginal increase in the number of accidents in the building industry over the last two or three years. I argue that this is due to people working in the dark, often with artificial light. Working in the building industry is dangerous anyway, but with artificial light the incidence of accidents is increased, because with artificial light one can get a black spot. A worker thinks that a board is in place. He walks over what he thinks is a board, but discovers, too late, that it is hole, and down he goes to the bottom of the scaffolding, and he is either killed or seriously injured.
That is why I am against this Act, and why I have always been against it. Building workers are opposed to this experiment, and I hope that the House will have sufficient sense tonight to throw out this Measure and let us get back to some reality.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) because, for the first time in my life, I agree with every word that he has spoken.
I am anxious to get rid of B.S.T. for ever. I agree with what the former Home Secretary said, that the main problem is that we do not have enough hours of daylight in the winter to begin with. This is our basic problem, and what we have to do is to try to put the few hours of daylight that we do have to the best use.
I strongly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman when he tries to make out that this is solely a Scottish problem. It is nothing of the sort. It is a problem which worries people in the north of England, and particularly those in my constituency. For a long time I have felt strongly about this matter. I was one of a number of hon. Members who supported a Private Member's Bill brought in during the last Session of Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who has been here for a good deal of today, and I was sorry that that Bill did not get a better hearing in the House.
I do not apologise for referring a good deal to my constituency to show why I and most of my constituents are so passionately against B.S.T. I think that my


constituency is a good geographical example of the effect of B.S.T. on the British Isles. If one draws a line from the southern part of Cornwall to the northern part of the mainland of Scotland, my constituency falls exactly in the middle. The maps on pages 8 and 9 of the White Paper show the way in which the dawn moves across the country from the south-east and the sunset moves across the country from the north-east. My constituency falls almost precisely in the middle as the light arrives and as it fails.
My constituents are almost unanimously against B.S.T. Within the last six weeks I have attended and have answered questions at three fairly large social gatherings in my constituency. I asked my constituents for their opinion about B.S.T. and on each occasion there was an almost unanimous vote for its abolition. On two occasions, less than five wanted to keep it and on the other occasion less than 10 wanted to keep it. It is not surprising that people living in Westmorland, where with B.S.T. the sun rises after 9 o'clock between 26th November and 1st February—which is 67 days—want to get rid of B.S.T.
Some hon. Members have said that they have received relatively few letters on this subject, but I have had a great many letters which are almost unanimously against B.S.T. I will quote examples of the hardship which B.S.T. brings to my constituents. I have received a letter from a small builder in the Langdale Valley who employs 12 people, in which he says:
As an individual builder I find that during last winter B.S.T. cost me about £200 in lost time, and when I say lost time I do not mean time lost other than the inability of the men to see what they were doing.
That small builder is being put to great trouble and expense at a time when in rural areas small builders are going out of business and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find builders to do maintenance work.
I have also received a letter signed by seven farmers in the Langdale Valley. This is very different farming from that referred to by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), who said that in the dark mornings people on farms could do jobs indoors. My constituent says:

I would like to draw to your attention the trouble and financial loss which the present state is causing myself and other farmers in the country. My wife and I are having to arise at 6.30 a.m. in order to breakfast and get the children off to school; I myself have breakfasted and milked usually by 8 o'clock and then perforce have to sit on my backside and await sufficient daylight to do outside work. This wastage of time is about one hour daily and spread over the affected period means a loss of individual production of some 80 to 90 hours, and in terms of hard cash somewhere between £50 and £100 per winter. Life on a hill farm is difficult enough without us having to endure something which I feel is needless and not really helpful to the general well being and economy of the country and certainly not to us people who live in remote areas of the countryside.
These are two typical examples of the feelings of people who live in a constituency which lies geographically in the middle of the dawn and the sunset. In my part of the country B.S.T. is detested, and I intend to vote against it tonight.
I should like to mention the figures from the Road Research Laboratory to which the right hon. Member for Cardiff. South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred. I took note of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I prefer to rely on what was said by my right hon. Friend. I hope that I paraphrase him correctly in saying that he found it difficult to judge the accident figures one way or the other in view of other factors such as the breathalyser and other matters which have been introduced. I feel that those figures are not significant enough.
I hope that this issue will not become clouded in the minds of hon. Members by considerations affecting the possibility of our joining the European Economic Community. The fact that British Standard Time fits in with the time in a large part of the Community is no ground for retaining British Standard Time here. My position on the approach to Europe is that I have always hoped that this country would be able to join the Community and I have always hoped that, when we knew what the price was, we should feel able to pay it. I plead, however, with any hon. Members who are enthusiasts for Europe not to vote for B.S.T. in what I regard as the misguided belief that to do otherwise would be to commit an un-European act. B.S.T. is unsuitable for us. Let us get rid of it because we think that it is a bad system for Britain I do not think that voting against B.S.T. could


matter less for our application to join Europe.
In paragraph 162, on page 55 of the Command Paper, it is suggested that 50 per cent. of the people were in favour of B.S.T. in mid-winter and that the figure rose to 51 per cent. in the spring. Those figures were obtained in the survey which was conducted last spring. My belief from my contact with people throughout the country is that there has been a massive swing against B.S.T. during the last few months. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money), who made such an excellent maiden speech, referred to the latest public opinion poll which has been published during the last few days. I believe that people have moved, and are moving, rapidly against B.S.T. I hope that in the Lobbies tonight, the House will reflect that massive swing against the system and that we abolish B.S.T. for all time.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: A ninth-century litany begins:
From the fury of the Northmen
May the Lord God deliver us.
Tonight we can add to the Northmen Post Office engineers working outside, postmen, builders, agricultural workers, milkmen and newsboys. They will have good cause to be furious with this House if it votes tonight for the retention of British Standard Time.
Members of this House are used to working in the dark. We are used to arriving late and working late. What we are not accustomed to is working very early in the morning in the dark on icy roads and icy paths.
People employed in distribution are affected not just by the darkness but by the coldness as well. When people, in the comfort of their homes, go to the front door and see the milkman, newsboy or postman coping with the cold, they may begin to realise that these people, who cannot wear gloves because of the work they do, suffer hardships of cold as well as of darkness in their working lives.
The public are often selfish. They want their extra hour of daylight at the end of the day but insist on having their post delivered before they leave home, their milk on the doorstep before break-

fast and their newspapers to read on the train. They should think of the working conditions of the men and women who provide these amenities.
I was shocked to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) in which he spoke of what he called the advantages of B.S.T. to the National Hunt racegoer and the golfer. I do not know how many hon. Members are able to view the clientele of National Hunt race meetings and golfers on winter afternoons. They are certainly not the people whom I shall support in the Lobby tonight if that support means that the postman, newsboy and milkman must suffer as a consequence.

Mr. Lawson: Is my hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) pointed out, among other things, that more young people were playing football on Saturday afternoons than were watching the game? He estimated that probably a million youngsters were playing. Does not that come into the matter?

Mr. Golding: It is, of course, open to people to play whatever game they wish on Saturday afternoons, and many of these youngsters are able to play games at school. I am speaking about those who must go to work and who, after a hard day's graft in manual and other trades, do not feel fit to play football at the close of a winter's evening.

Mr. Bob Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that, certainly in the part of the county I represent, workers are on their way to work long before daylight, whether we have G.M.T. or B.S.T.?

Mr. Golding: There is a great difference between people travelling to work, even upstairs in a smoke-ridden bus, and those walking the streets delivering milk, the post and newspapers. I urge hon. Members who are trying to adduce genuine arguments in this matter not to scrape the barrel. There must be cogent arguments in favour of retaining B.S.T. My only point at the moment is that an argument on behalf of sport is not a cogent one in favour of retaining it.

Mr. Tom King: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's main thesis, but he


seemed to draw a distinction between the interests of people who might attend afternon race meetings and those of people who might have to work in the early mornings, but might it not be true that with the increasing amount of shift work a great deal of the attendance at race meetings comprises those who have been on the early morning shift?

Mr. Golding: There is no evidence of that. One has only to look at the timing of shifts. A man on the 6 o'clock to 2 o'clock shift cannot get to Haydock Park, or wherever it may be. The best he can do is to get into the betting shop. British Standard Time has no relevance whatever to those men who come off shift and can only go into the betting shop.

Mr. Denis Howell: I fear that this is becoming an almost metaphysical argument, but perhaps my hon. Friend will agree that, whatever view his constituents take, people still like a flutter and take an interest in racing every day. All I tried to argue was that that would be impossible without a sufficiently large attendance at race meetings so that a market on the race could be properly formulated. If that proposition is true, my argument must be in the interest of the working men in his constituency.

Mr. Golding: I was shocked by my hon. Friend's argument earlier, and I am further shocked now. How, at this present time, anyone can encourage bigger attendance at mid-week race meetings I do not know. I know that the hard working shift workers I represent would not agree with that point of view.
On all sides at present increased productivity is being demanded of the work-people. In fact, postal workers have recently been given the stick by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications because of the fall in productivity in the postal services in the last two years. The significance of its being in the last two years has evidently not sunk into the mind of the Minister, but it is the period during which we have had B.S.T.
The report itself makes clear that B.S.T. has led to a 1 per cent. fall in productivity in the postal service; to a decline in productivity of almost half of 1 per cent. on the Post Office engineering

and telephone side; and to a significant loss in productivity in building. It is quite wrong to castigate the workers when the cause of the fall in productivity is clearly B.S.T.
Many of us have received many letters from constituents demanding an end of B.S.T. The significant thing is that those who support B.S.T. do so in a lukewarm fashion, and that is true of our constituents. The people who oppose it very strongly suffer from it.
The House should consider the postmen and the occupational groups who are badly hit by British Standard Time, and we should go from the comfort of these benches into the Lobby to support them.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: There are four large vested interests in favour of Greenwich Mean Time. I am in favour of British Standard Time. First, there is the big farmers lobby and the agricultural lobby as a whole; secondly, there is the construction industry; and, thirdly, there is the one for which I have the greatest sympathy, the post office workers and the men who deliver the letters. But there is a fourth lobby which has not been mentioned, namely, the "burglars' union". In the belief that I would be very well suited to put their case, it was suggested to me that I should put it, but I had to say that I could not support it in view of other larger constituency interests. Most good burglars like to do their work, as the French would put it, "cinqàsept". Much more burglary would take place if we reverted to Greenwich Mean Time. An additional hour of darkness means a great deal more business for the burglar and more trouble for the police.
One section of the population has not been mentioned. The elderly and the retired are entitled to as much consideration as the working man. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who made a slashing attack on British Standard Time, will now hear the situation concerning retired people. Unfortunately, the Isle of Thanet does not have a very large population of hardworking people and therefore I am not able to say with great pomposity that we all work in the Isle of Thanet. We have the largest proportion of retired people in the country, an enormous number of


elderly ladies, and, thanks to the policies of the Labour Government, the highest unemployment record practically anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Between three and half-past four in the afternoon many of my constituents can be seen playing bowls in Broadstairs. A large number of children enjoy themselves in sport which can be played until half-past four in the afternoon. I am sorry to say that, unlike the miners of Wales, we cannot afford beautifully flood-lit rugby grounds. We look forward to having a good centre for recreation, but we have nothing like that at the moment. The area is not like the rich industrial Midlands or like parts of my own country of Wales which, I am glad to say, are much better off than they used to be.
Most old people want to enjoy their afternoons out and not have to return home in the dark. If I remember aright, it can be completely dark at about 3.45 p.m. In my constituency there are about 50 old-age pensioners' clubs and associations. At present, all their meetings take place in the afternoon. They can enjoy their afternoons and still get home before dark. If we return to Greenwich Mean Time, they will have to go home in the dark, and more and more old people are getting worried about the prospect.
In my view, old people should have our first consideration. They represent between 20 and 25 per cent. of the population and, as a large group of people, in my view they should receive priority. It does not matter all that much to a builder if he leaves home in the morning in darkness and, after all, builders are just one section of industry.
I turn now to the point which has been made about sport. Obviously a number of hon. Gentlemen do not understand the racing fraternity as I do. I have been associated with the sport for some years. I am not concerned only with bowls. It is a terrible situation when the first race of the day has to be at 11.30 a.m. in order that racing may finish by 2.30 or 2.45 because it is too dark later in the afternoon.
Greenwich Mean Time also affects those who play football of all kinds, since it does not enable them to practise after finishing the day's work. They are not all miners working on the coal face. All

sorts of people belong to amateur clubs. We see a great increase of youthful participation in active sport today. Whether people play football or rugger, whether they are interested in racing or whether they play bowls in a more leisurely fashion, all of them want the present experiment to continue. We have a seven-day week, and people have two and a half days in which to enjoy their respective leisure and pleasure sports which need an extra hour of daylight.
In any event, going back to G.M.T. means going back to its for nearly six months of the year, under the old Summer Time Act of 1922. That seems to be ludicrous. If we have to make a change, it would seem that it is needed only for part of November, December, January and February. In my view, it would be much better to keep on the present excellent experiment.
For a long time, I was a member of the all-party committee on tourism. The subject of British Standard Time came before that committee, and we were united in putting forward the proposal that, for the sake of the travel organisations and tourism generally, the experiment was a good one. The British Hotels and Restaurants Association, catering firms, B.E.A., B.O.A.C. and all the other tourist organisations are supporters of the present situation for many reasons which I need not go into now.
Within three years, tourism will be our greatest industry. It is well on the way to being that now. It far overshadows the great industries which are opposed to the present position. On grounds of humanity for the old, of recreation for the young, and of major industry, I say that we have been far too narrow in the lobbies that we have received and that we should take a broader view. If we take that view, let us stick to the present and then work a compromise for the really difficult months of December, January and February, which this House might easily be able to reconcile.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Throughout this debate so many have used arguments of preference for some kind of convenience. Those who are looking for the convenience of their constituents, for other interests which they may claim to represent, can do so honestly and with considerable validity.
But what is much more important than the convenience of some particular section of the community is to consider the real issues in this debate as I see them—the issues of the cost in lives and in money. This is really what this debate should be about. We can all think of people who will benefit from some part of the change in or the continuation of the present system. What is important is that we consider the whole cost in lives and in money. It is when we look at this that the position becomes a little clearer.
One very large element in money is the cost of electricity that could be saved if we were to continue British Standard Time. This is estimated at about £100 million. All the arguments of the hill farmers, those people who want to go to betting shops and those who want to obtain advantages for tourism do not match this advantage that can be estimated as it is done in the White Paper.
Even more important than the cost in terms of money is the cost in terms of lives. I do not think sufficient notice has been taken of the Road Research Laboratory's paper that came out today. It is shameful that we have underestimated the impact that this should be making upon our debate. It is all very well talking about special interests, but when it is estimated that lives are being saved as a result of British Standard Time, each one of us as we go into the Division Lobby must weigh very carefully indeed how many lives are likely to be saved as a result of what we are doing and as a result of the way in which we vote tonight.
The evidence of this is clear. Paragraph 162(c) of the White Paper states:
There is little doubt that British Standard Time has led to an overall improvement in road accident casualties …".
It was not possible to quantify that statement at all precisely but the Road Research Laboratory—not a pressure group of any kind—has made that quantification which is available before we vote tonight. It has shown that as a result of the introduction of British Standard Time the number of lives saved and of those who have avoided serious injury has increased by 12 per cent. during the affected hours. This means that serious accidents and loss

of life have fallen by 12 per cent. during the affected hours as a result of the introduction of British Standard Time, that 2,700 people have been saved from death or serious injury—in England 2,200, in Wales 25 and in the whole of Scotland 455.
Anybody who thinks that there are issues much more important than this should re-examine his priorities. In view of this reduction of 12 per cent. in the number of those killed or seriously injured, we must surely weigh this consideration with the other special interests which have been advanced. On that basis, I feel that we should agree that British Standard Time should continue.

10.0 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: Sir John Gilmour (Fife, East) rose—

Hon. Members: Vote!

Sir J. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made a strong plea that, on the ground of money saved and lives saved, we should continue the present system. All the speeches in the debate so far have shown that there is an extra cost incurred as a result of British Standard Time. On the question of lives and injury saved, the argument is far more difficult. The principal difficulty is that, because of British Standard Time, we have taken various steps to protect, for example, the lives of children in a way which we have never sought to do before.
I hope that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members will come down on the side of abolishing British Standard Time. I am sure that those who live in the South can overcome any difficulties which they will experience as a result, and I am confident that those who live in the North and the West would find it extremely hard to overcome their difficulties if British Standard Time were continued. For these reasons, I feel that we should reject the Order and go back to the systetm which we used to have.

Mr. Tom King: Mr. Tom King rose—

Hon. Members: Vote!

Mr. King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for me


to draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the Amendment standing in my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends, bearing in mind what the situation will be if the Order is not approved?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. That would be quite out of order.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I sense that the House wishes to come to a conclusion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that the remainder of what I have to say will command the same universal assent as my opening remark.
I join in the congratulations already given to the three hon. Gentlemen and the hon. Lady who have made their maiden speeches today. They brought the views of their constituents to the debate and showed how strong is the concern felt in their own areas on this matter.
There are a few questions on which several of us have hoped for an answer. For instance, I did not succeed in interrupting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), and neither did anyone else—[Interruption.]—and the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) asked for elucidation upon one matter which should be gone into—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the House will agree that we have had an interesting and enjoyable debate. It is obvious that the House wishes to come to a conclusion. We ought now to listen quietly to the hon. and learned Member who has the Floor, so that we may come soon to that conclusion.

Mr. Bell: I have no intention of standing for more than a few minutes between the House and the Division which we are obviously approaching. But a few points were raised that I said that I would try to deal with, and it is right that I should try to do so. I shall leave all the matters that have been generally canvassed and turn to the questions that were left outstanding.
Some hon. Members asked what would be the effect of defeating the Motion in the Division Lobby tonight. It would be that we should return to the British Summer Time Acts, as amended in Schedule 1 to the 1968 Act. That is, we should go back to Greenwich Mean Time from the Sunday after the fourth Saturday in October until the Sunday after the third Saturday in March. But the right to make Orders prescribing different dates would also revive, so that there would be the flexibility and the possibility of adjustment which some hon. Members particularly wanted.
The question of road casualties appears to concern some hon. Members very greatly. The document from the Road Research Laboratory which was put in the Library today was produced. It is rather odd that it should suddenly appear on the day of the debate, headed in a way which suggests that it is for use in the debate. I point out to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, who raised the matter in an intervention during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and then developed it in his own speech but would not allow any intervention, that the Road Research Laboratory is saying in it not that there has been a reduction in casualties as a result of British Standard Time but that it thinks that if there had been Greenwich Mean Time during the winters concerned more people would have been killed. That is not statistics but an expression of opinion. It is just the Road Research Laboratory saying, "We think that more people would have been killed." [Interruption.]
I hope that I am correct in thinking that all hon. Members who wish to take part in the Division have now arrived. If there were any doubt about that, I should, in spite of the noise, continue to address you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for several more minutes. But I feel reasonably satisfied about that, and that hon. Members on both sides will take the United Kingdom view of the subject and vote in a way that will show that we are as thoughtful and as mindful of the interests of the further reaches of this Kingdom as we are of the coastal resorts mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies).
I hope that the House will now reach a decision—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and throw out the Order, and with it British Standard Time.

Question put,

That the British Standard Time Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved:—

The House divided: Ayes, 81. Noes 366.

Division No. 40.]
AYES
10.9 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Ogden, Eric


Barnes, Michael
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Barnett, Joel
Harper, Joseph
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hattersley, Roy
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hon. James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hunter, Adam
Roper, John


Cockeram, Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rose, Paul B.


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Royle, Anthony


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, South)
Sharpies, Richard


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Lawson, George
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Le Marchant, Spencer
Skeffington, Arthur


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lestor, Miss Joan
Small, William


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.


Dunnett, Jack
McElhone, Frank
Thomas. Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Garrett, W. E.
Meacher, Michael



Ginsburg, David
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Molloy, William
Mr. James Johnson and


Grant, John D. (Islington, East)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. John H. Osborn.


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Carlisle, Mark
Eadie, Alex


Adley, Robert
Cary, Sir Robert
Edelman, Maurice


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Channon, Paul
Eden, Sir John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Chapman, Sydney
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Armstrong, Ernest
Chichester-Clark, R.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Ashton, Joe
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Clark, William (Surrey, East)
Ellis, Tom


Atkinson, Norman
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Evans, Fred


Awdry, Daniel
Clegg, Walter
Eyre, Reginald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fell, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Concannon, J. D.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Baker, w. H. K. (Banff)
Coombs, Derek
Fernyhough, E.


Balniel, Lord
Cooper, A. E.
Fidler, Michael


Baxter, William
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cormack, Patrick
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Costain, A. P.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Benyon, W.
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)


Biffen, John
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charies


Bishop, E. S.
Crowder, F. P.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Blaker, Peter
Curran, Charles
Fortescue, Tim


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dalkeith, Earl of
Foster, Sir John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dalyell, Tam
Fowler, Norman


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Dance, James
Fox, Marcus


Booth, Albert
Davidson, Arthur
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Boscawen, R. T.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Fry, Peter


Bossom, Sir Clive
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bowden, Andrew
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gardner, Edward


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Gibson-Watt, David


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Gilbert, Dr. John


Braine, Bernard
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bray, Ronald
Deakins, Eric
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Brewis, John
Dean, Paul
Glynn, Dr. Alan


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Golding, John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dempsey, James
Goodhart, Philip


Buchan, Norman
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Goodhew, Victor


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dormand, J. D.
Gorst, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Gourlay, Harry


Bullus, Sir Eric
Driberg, Tom
Gower, Raymond


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, West)
Dykes, Hugh
Gray, Hamish




Green, Alan
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rossi, Hugh (Homaey)


Grieve, Percy
Maclennan, Robert
Rost, Peter


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McManus, Frank
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gurden, Harold
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Madel, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hamling, William
Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Marten, Neil
Sillars, James


Hardy, Peter
Mather, Carol
Silverman, Julius


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maude, Angus
Simeons, Charles


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mawby, Ray
Sinclair, Sir George


Havers, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J>
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hawkins, Paul
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Hay, John
Mendelson, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)


Heffer, Eric S.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Soref, Harold


Heseltine, Michael
Millan, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Hicks, Robert
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Speed, Keith


Higgins, Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman
Spriggs, Leslie


Hiley, Joseph
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Sproat, Iain


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stainton, Keith


Holland, Philip
Moate, Roger
Stallard, A. W.


Holt, Miss Mary
Molyneaux, James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hooson, Emlyn
Money, Ernie
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Horam, John
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Hordern, Peter
Monro, Hector
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
More, Jasper
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Howell, David (Guildford)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Strang, Gavin


Huckfield, Leslie
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hunt, John
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Sutcliffe, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tapsell, Peter


Iremonger, T. L.
Mudd, David
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


James, David
Murray, Ronald King
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Janner, Greville
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tebbit, Norman


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Neave, Airey
Temple, John M.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Jessel, Toby
Normanton, Tom
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Nott, John
Tinn, James


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
O'Malley, Brian
Torney, Tom


Jones, Arthur (Northants, South)
Onslow, Cranley
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Trew, Peter


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Oswald, Thomas
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Jopling, Michael
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)



Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)
Urwin, T. W.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Varley, Eric G.


Kaufman, Gerald
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Waddington, David


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Paisley, Mr. Ian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kelley, Richard
Pardoe, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Kerr, Russell
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wall, Patrick


Kilfedder, James
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wallace, George


Kimball, Marcus
Pendry, Tom
Walters, Dennis


King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)
Pentland, Norman
Ward, Dante Irene


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Percival, Ian
Watkins, David


Kinnock, Neil
Pounder, Rafton
Weatheill, Bernard


Kinsey, J. R.

Weitzman, David


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Knox, David
Price, J. T, (Westhoughton)
Wells, William (Waisall, N.)


Lambie, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lambton, Antony
Probert, Arthur
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Lamond, James
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Whitchead, Philip


Lane, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Raison, Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


Latham, Arthur
Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James
Wilkinson, John


Leadbitter, Ted
Rankin, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Redmond, Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lomas, Kenneth
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Longden, Gilbert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Loveridge, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Ridsdale, Julian
Woodnutt, Mark


MacArthur, Ian
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woof, Robert


McCann, John
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Coronwy (Caernarvon)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)
Younger, Hn. George


MacColl, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



McCrindle, R. A.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mackenzie, Gregor
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Mackintosh, John P.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmamock)
Mr. Ronald Bell.


McLaren, Martin

Orders of the Day — BANK CHARGES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Eyre.]

10.24 p.m.

Dr. John Gilbert: I rise to draw the attention of the House to the co-ordinated increase in bank charges recently announced by the clearing banks. This increase is only the latest manifestation in a whole series of manifestations of the cosy little cartel that has been operated by the clearing banks in this country over a great many years.
This latest increase has affected hundreds of thousands of people. It might not be putting it too high to say that millions of people could be affected. There are, according to reports, no fewer than 30,000 people in one firm who have been affected by this increase. Everybody whose firm is in a scheme where the staff have their salaries or wages paid directly into their bank accounts is affected by this latest increase in charges.
These customers of the banks have no redress whatever. They have not even had any individual notification of the increased charges which they are going to have to pay. The customers are unable to take their accounts to any other bank. If they do so they will find the same increases in charges there. The only thing that they can do is to transfer their money and their business to an entirely different section of the banking industry, and until the events of last week, at any rate, these latest increases in bank charges were proving to be the best possible recruiting sergeant for that invaluable institution the Giro; in fact, the best recruiting sergeant it has had since its foundation.
Tonight, however, I am concerned not so much with the amounts of the increases—though these are steep enough in all truth, and plenty of people in the country, as I know full well, are hopping mad on the subject—as with the collusive way in which these increases have been introduced. All the banks, in one announcement, said that they intended raising their charges, by the same amount, on the same services, with all the increases coming into effect on the

same day. One could hardly have a clearer textbook example of the operation of a cartel.
This is not the only recent manifestation of the cartel. During the last couple of months the matter of evening closing and the introduction of charges on cheques backed by cheque cards issued by the banks other than members of the British Bankers Association have all been the subject of the same sort of identical announcement. The cartel operates on the hours of business which the banks transact, and on the rates which they pay for their deposits, and although it has been rumoured that the banks themselves would like to have done away with this aspect of their own cartel, it should be borne in mind that the reason they would like to do away with it is that it would be in their own interests to do so.
They are not hoping to do away with the interest rate aspect of the cartel in order to compete more effectively among themselves. Perish the thought. That is the last thing that they have in their minds. The reason they were talking of doing away with the interest rates side of the cartel was that they hoped to attract more business from other financial institutions.
This cartel operates, moreover, over a whole range of different charges made by the banks for their various services, and until quite recently it sustained a persistent refusal to publish proper statements of account, and even to recognise duly constituted trade union bargaining agents for their staffs.
It is not my purpose tonight to examine all the implications of this cartel: sufficient to say that it is of such an all-embracing nature that it is obvious that its existence could not be hidden if it were tried. This is not just a cartel. It is an open cartel. in fact, it is more than that. It is a brazen, self-flaunting cartel. If we had in this country the sort of effective anti-trust legislation that is known elsewhere, conduct of this sort would have landed the boards of directors of the clearing banks behind bars a long time ago, and quite rightly so. In this country we do not enjoy such protection.
We have the various Monopolies Acts and Restrictive Trade Practices Acts.


They have proved to be puny tools indeed. It is not my purpose tonight to weary the House with citing chapter and verse of the legislation that bears on this matter. Suffice it to say that the Government themselves recognise that the case has been proved.
Towards the end of September I wrote a letter to the then Board of Trade in connection with the introduction of charges on bank cards other than those issued by the clearing banks. I had a reply from the newly-constituted Department of Trade and Industry a couple of weeks ago. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I do not read the full text of the letter, and that he will accept the following as a fair extract from it:
So far as the Monopolies Commission is concerned, it does appear that the clearing banks' action could be made the subject of a limited inquiry under the power to refer to the Commission situations where at least one-third of the supply of a particular service is in the hands of firms who conduct their respective affairs in such a way as to restrict competition.
Those are not my words. Those are the Government's words—" as to restrict competition".
The Minister went on to say that he thought it would be more appropriate to see this in the round—I quite agree with him. He says that he wants to look at this action in the wider context of the structure and practice of the banking industry and the various arrangements between the clearing banks. I thoroughly welcome that decision. He said:
The Government are looking closely at these in the light of their declared intention of promoting competition in areas where it is not at present effective.
Again, those are not my words, but the Government's words. The case is proven beyond doubt.
Just to rub the point home, I wrote again to the Minister on the occasion of the introduction of the new increases in the group charges. I received a reply from him a couple of days ago which said that my letter:
… raises similar issues to your earlier letter … and I have nothing to add to my letter …
The Government are saying that here is a second clear case for a reference to the Monopolies Commission. We are very glad that the Minister accepts our case. I am quite prepared to sympathise with him in his predicament in this de-

bate. He has clearly agreed that something should be done, and yet he is not apparently in a position to announce that anything will be done. I do not expect this to be the occasion for a major revelation of Government policy, but the Minister has accepted that in the space of less than two months we have had two clear cases for reference to the Monopolies Commission. It is there in black and white. Despite these admissions, the Government, to all outward appearances, are doing nothing more than studying the situation, the facts of which have been an open public scandal for many years.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will accept that this matter has been raised tonight in a non-partisan manner, despite what I have said about his inaction. I deeply regret that my own party did nothing about this when they were in a position to do so. Equally, I am confident that most of the sentiments I have expressed tonight will be echoed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Minister does not need very much strength or courage. All he has to do is to lean on the banks. If he does so, I am confident that they will yield without a fight in a matter of weeks. If, however, the months roll by and nothing further transpires, he will not expect us to be as gentle with him the next time this matter is raised in the House, as surely it will be.

10.35 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) has done a service in raising this matter tonight and in the form in which he has raised it. I am surprised that this move has come from his side of the House and not from this side in view of all that is involved in it, but I am delighted, whichever side has brought it, that it is having an airing tonight.
I do not think that the hon. Member's message is to the Government or to the Treasury Bench. It is to the banks themselves. I believe that they must take a stand in this matter. I want to see private enterprise banks. I want to see the sort of competition which a private enterprise system must have from the banks. I agree with the hon. Member that whatever the reasons, whatever urges from Governments, of both parties, there may have been on the banks in


the past, we do not at present have the competition and the free working of the banking facility that we ought to have. I would urge the banks to pay heed to what the hon. Member has said.
I want to say only a few words, because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have an answer to give from the Treasury Bench. But I do not really want to hear his answer. I want action from the banks themselves. I believe that it is far too easy, perhaps to suit their own ends or, perhaps, because they feel that they have a special responsibility to help Chancellors of the day to overcome their problems—whatever the reasons, the banks seem to have deviated from what I consider to be the sound banking base that the country must have if it is to continue as a free enterprise country.
Too many decisions are made by the joint banks which are blanket decisions covering all. This is dangerous for the country. One recognises the inflationary problems, and they must be dealt with. The Government must restrict inflation by, perhaps, restricting household purchases, but I believe that if they allow it to interfere with the free working of the small and medium-sized businesses, the general economic strength of the country will suffer.
I ask the banks to show a little bit of independence. They showed a little bit about 18 months ago, and I ask them to go further. I join the hon. Member for Dudley in asking them, whether it be a cartel outlook or whatever the other outlook is, to take an independent line on occasions, so that we will feel that one can go from one bank to another, when an honest discretion will be shown instead of their having to work to a rather narrow loyalty within themselves.
I agree with the hon. Member that this is the beginning. Unless the banks themselves—never mind the Government—heed it, they may well put themselves out of business. Free enterprise banking has been the facility which has allowed the country to become one of the leading trading countries, and a wealthy country at that. The banks may be helping to bring about their own demise, and I do not want that to happen.
I ask the banks to heed this Adjournment debate. If my hon. Friend the

Under-Secretary can give them some sort of lead which will allow them to use their own discretion and feel that they do not have to be tied to the edicts which come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Department, he will be doing the country and them a good turn. I thank the hon. Member for making the point. I hope that it will be listened to outside. If it is not, I agree with him that this is a subject which will be raised on more than one occasion in the future.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) and the Minister for allowing me to intervene in this Adjournment debate, since basically both my hon. Friend and I have been at one in writing to the Department on various occasions concerning the collusive raising of bank charges and the business of charging other bank customers 4s. for cashing cheques at the clearing banks.
I certainly do not want to inject a partisan note into the debate, because I am very pleased with the contribution of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). I think we are all at one tonight in this Chamber in wishing to promote further competition within banking. I wonder, however, why the Government should appear to be a little bit reluctant to enforce competition on the clearing banks by the very fact that they are rather reluctant to refer the whole issue to the Monopolies Commission, which, one would have thought, was the statutory authority for dealing with monopoly circumstances of this kind.
Could it be, perhaps, that competition in bank charges might well become competition in other aspects of the clearing banks' operations, such as competition in attracting deposit accounts, possibly in paying higher interest rates for deposits? The clearing banks get their money remarkably cheaply in view of the long-term trend in interest rates. It might even be that the clearing banks would be forced, if there was a system of real competition, to pay interest rates, albeit rather small ones, on current accounts, from which they at present get a fair amount of money from their customers which they are able to put to good use but for which they give little in return. There is no doubt that competition could reduce the charges which the banks make


to their customers, and not only in the I.C.I. type of scheme.
The recent collusive raising of charges is not in the public interest and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, I should have thought that it represented a full justification for a reference to the Monopolies Commission and not merely to an inter-departmental inquiry.
It is stated Government policy to promote competition throughout all sectors of British industry and commerce. The test of the Government's intentions will be seen by their attitude to competition in the monopoly position of the clearing banks. This is a time for action rather than words and I endorse the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley when he said that we do not want to wait for several months and find that little is done in this respect.
It is up to the Government tonight to show, even if they cannot promise immediate action, that they have the courage of their convictions, that they really believe in competition and that they will take the first tentative steps to enforce competition in a sphere of British financial operations which hitherto has not been subject to this very important principle.

10.42 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Gilbert), the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) have raised a matter which I agree is of the greatest importance.
The co-ordinated increases in bank charges to which reference has been made are, I take it, the increases announced by the Committee of London Clearing Banks in the special terms made available under group schemes to employees of large firms and Government Departments—the so-called "I.C.I. terms". The essence of these arrangements is that they are, in general, more favourable to individual account holders who are employees of those organisations.
These terms have remained unchanged for the last 10 years. Individual banks are, I understand, reviewing other charges made to account holders but are not, as far as I know, taking concerted action in this sphere.
There has also been much reference to the decision of the clearing banks to impose a 4s. charge for the cashing of cheques against Co-operative Bank cheque guarantee cards. These are credit cards, as the hon. Member for Dudley pointed out.
These are, first and foremost, matters for the clearing banks and their customers, and it would be out of place for the Government to deliver an "instant" opinion on the justification or otherwise of the banks' actions.

Dr. Gilbert: This is not a question of the clearing banks' customers paying this 4s. It is the customers of the other banks.

Mr. Ridley: In connection with the points to which I have referred, I simply said that it would be wrong for the Government to make an instant judgment in these matters, whether they apply directly to the customers of the clearing banks or, as the hon. Gentleman said, to the other banks in question. At least one of the organisations affected by the proposed increase is reported to have taken the matter up direct with the clearing banks.
The clearing banks are doubtless well aware of the public criticism of a number of their recent actions and will, presumably, be considering whether any action on their part, individual or collective, is called for to meet this criticism. No doubt also the directors of the banks will read in the OFFICIAL REPORT what hon. Members have said in this debate.
At the same time, the recent publicity will have drawn the attention of the public to the fact that some of the range of facilities provided by the clearing banks are also provided by other institutions. There may well be a number of individual customers of the clearing banks who would be well advised to investigate whether their own particular requirements could be met more satisfactorily, and perhaps more cheaply, by one of these other institutions. Indeed, it must not be assumed that charges for services which the banks make to individuals or firms are necessarily uniform either as between different clearing banks or even different branches of the same bank. Individual managers have a good deal of discretion, and there is therefore scope for shopping around and bargaining. The charges actually


made may reflect the extent and range of services used by the account holder, and the balance maintained in the account.
The hon. Member has suggested that the activities of the clearing banks should be referred to the Monopolies Commission. Before dealing with this suggestion specifically, I should like to confirm that the Government attach the greatest importance to competition and to rooting out restrictive practices as a means of ensuring the best allocation of resources and of safeguarding the interests of the consumer, and financial institutions are in no different position from any other bodies in this matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be announcing the Government's proposals for improving the effectiveness of the machinery now available for promoting competition.
Because we attach such importance to the promotion of competition, the Government naturally give serious consideration to suggestions from hon. Members, and from outside the House, that particular industries in which competition appears to them to be ineffective should be examined by the Monopolies Commission. When we receive such suggestions we see, first of all, whether the statutory criteria for reference to the Commission are satisfied; that is, whether one third of the supply of the product or service concerned is in the hands of one firm or of several firms which conduct their respective affairs in such a way that competition is restricted.
If these statutory criteria are satisfied, we go on to consider whether there is any evidence of abuse of a monopoly position, whether by unfair action against competitors or exploitation of customers; and we also take account of any evidence that the absence of competition has led to unnecessarily high costs or the misallocation of economic resources. Finally, we consider any elements peculiar to the industry concerned which may be relevant to a decision on whether to refer it to the Monopolies Commission.
The hon. Member wrote asking me to refer to the Commission the action of the clearing banks in relation to the charges they make for cashing Co-operative Bank cheques. In my reply, I pointed out that

this action appeared to fall within the statutory criteria of the monopolies legislation, and that a reference was therefore technically possible. I said that I was considering the matter. This is indeed the invariable practice when suggestions for reference are made.
I have now considered all aspects of this suggestion very carefully, in the light of the criteria I have already mentioned, and have decided that I should not be justified in making a reference to the Monopolies Commission in the immediate future. I have listened carefully to all that hon. Members said this evening, but I do not think that they have raised any new considerations which have not been in my mind. I realise that this decision may be disappointing to the hon. Member and his hon. Friend, and perhaps to others, but I welcome the opportunity which this debate provides to make the position abundantly clear.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell: I know that my hon. Friends will be a little disappointed with that reply. The hon. Gentleman has announced a decision on their suggestion that a reference to the Monopolies Commission should be made, but has given no reason for that decision. He has indicated the considerations he bore in mind, and those considerations are well known to the House. The House has been told many times what type of conisderation Governments have in mind in deciding whether such reference should be made. What he has not told us is why a Government which claims to be dedicated to the promotion of competition have decided, when faced with circumstances such as my hon. Friends have described, not to make the reference. It would have been interesting to hear the reasons which led the Government to their conclusion.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) expressed surprise that this matter should have been raised from this side of the House, but it is not at all surprising. In my view, it is this side which has from the beginning shown the greatest interest in promoting competition. The powers under which this reference could have been made are powers given to the Government by the Monopolies and Mergers Act passed when the Labour Government were in office in 1965.

Mr. Ridley: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he did not use those powers to do what he is now advocating should be done?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend has criticised the Labour Government for not making a reference, but he is referring to certain current facts which, in his view, call forth a reference. The Labour Government produced greater revelation by the banks of their financial position, something which was never done by previous Governments.
I am sorry that the Minister has not felt able to tell us the reasons for his decision. We are afraid that this decision may be indicative of the realities of the competition policy which the Government propose to put forward in the next few weeks. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in the light of his decision, we shall look at those proposals a great deal more critically.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o'clock.